Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 15, 2023 | 讻状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 30

This week’s learning is sponsored in loving memory of Miriam David, Malkah bat Michael v’Esther, on her 7th yahrzeit, which took place on the 5th of Sivan. With love from her children and grandchildren.
If a husband makes a condition in the get, such as, if I do not come back within thirty days the get is effective, and he does not return due to circumstances beyond his control – is the get valid? 聽The Mishna and a braita discuss the laws regarding one who loans money and stipulates that instead of getting paid back, the loan will be deducted the amount from teruma or maaser from the lender’s produce (assuming the loan was given to a kohen, levi or poor person). What happens when the price of the produce fluctuates? If they lock in at a particular price and the value of the produce goes up, this is not considered interest. The loan is not canceled during the shmita year along with other loans as it does not require collection from the borrower. If the land of the lender got ruined and the lender gave up on ever getting the loan back (yei’ush), even if the field began producing again, he/she can no longer deduct the funds owed. What happens if the borrower dies? Can this arrangement continue with the children? On what does it depend? If it was done in a court, the original plan remains in place automatically, even if there are no heirs as other kohanim, levites or poor people theoretically take their place, as it is in their best interest as well so that people will be willing to lend them money. However, if a poor person became rich, this arrangement no longer works (as the tithe no longer belongs to the borrower) and the lender loses the ability to collect the loan. Why is there a distinction between death and becoming wealthy? In order to continue collecting loans in this manner from heirs, there must be land in the estate of the deceased. Does it matter if there is less land than the value of the loan itself? A braita discusses a case where one says, “I have maaser of yours in my possession.” Is there a concern that there is trumat maaser within that? It is unclear exactly what the case is and what the concern is, and the Gemara suggests two possibilities that are then rejected until they bring a final valid explanation.

讻讬 诪砖讜讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讬讞 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜


When the court appoints a second agent, must they do so in the presence of the first agent, or may it be when not in his presence? He then resolves it: The second agent may be appointed either in his presence or not in his presence. Similarly, they sent from there, from Eretz Yisrael, this ruling: The court may appoint another agent either in the presence of the first agent or not in his presence.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗


搂 The Gemara relates another incident, involving a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted a bill of divorce: If I do not arrive from now until thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of the thirtieth day, but he was prevented from crossing the river by the fact that the ferry was located on the other side of the river, so he did not cross the river within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived. Shmuel said: That is not considered to be an arrival, even though it is clear that he intended to arrive, so the bill of divorce is valid.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 驻讬讬住谞讗 诇讛 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗讝诇 驻讬讬住讛 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗


The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who said to agents with whom he had deposited a bill of divorce: If I do not appease my wife within thirty days, let this be a bill of divorce. He went to appease her, but she was not appeased. Rav Yosef said: Did he give her a large vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars but she was not appeased? Although his inability to appease her was a result of his lack of financial means, since he did not properly fulfill his condition to appease her, the bill of divorce is valid.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬讚讬 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讛 讛讗 驻讬讬住讛 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗


There are those who say a different version of the statement, that Rav Yosef said: Did he need to give her a vessel full of dinars in order to appease her? This is a situation where he attempted to appease her, but she was not appeased. Therefore, he did fulfill his condition, and the bill of divorce is not effective, as it is not his fault that she was not appeased.


讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉


The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: This second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control have legal standing with regard to bills of divorce. Therefore, the bill of divorce is not valid, as the husband did all he could to appease her. This first version, in which the bill of divorce is valid, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诪讞诇拽谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖诪讗 诪转 讛讻讛谉 讗讜 讛诇讜讬 讗讜 讛注砖讬专 讛注谞讬


MISHNA: The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person, with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the teruma and tithes separated from the produce, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money with the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that perhaps the priest or the Levite died in the interim, or that the poor person became rich and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man鈥檚 tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate teruma and tithes.


诪转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 讗诐 讛诇讜讜谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉


If in fact they died, then he must obtain permission from the heirs in order to continue the arrangement. However, if he lent money to the deceased, and he stipulated in the presence of the court that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.


讙诪壮 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗转讜 诇讬讚讬讛


GEMARA: The mishna assumes that the priest, Levite, and poor person acquire the teruma and tithes that the creditor separates from his produce, but they agree at the time of the loan that the tithes and teruma will then be acquired by the creditor as payment of their debt. The Gemara asks: And can the priest, Levite, and poor person transfer possession of the terumot or tithes back to the creditor even though the produce did not come into their possession?


讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诇讜讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘诪讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注砖讜 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜讻讛 讻讝讜讻讛


Rav says: This is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites, i.e., people who have an arrangement with a specific priest or Levite to give him their teruma or tithes. The specific priest or Levite therefore has a presumptive status of ownership of the tithes or teruma and is considered to have acquired them. And Shmuel says: This is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others, who acquire the teruma and tithes on their behalf. The lender is then able to reclaim the gifts as repayment of the loan. Ulla said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says in other contexts: The Sages, by means of an ordinance, rendered one who does not acquire like one who acquires. Here, too, the Sages instituted an ordinance to enable this arrangement.


讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪讻专讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘诪讝讻讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻注讜诇讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉


The Gemara explains why each of the aforementioned Sages disagreed with the others. All the other Sages, i.e., Shmuel and Ulla, do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Rav, because the mishna does not teach explicitly that the halakha is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites. Rav and Ulla do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel because the mishna does not teach that this halakha is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others. Rav and Shmuel also do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Ulla because we do not establish the mishna to be stated in accordance with an individual opinion, in this case Rabbi Yosei; rather, the assumption is that the ruling of the mishna is written in accordance with the majority opinion.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诪讞诇拽谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谉


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, with the presumption that they are still alive.


讜驻讜住拽 注诪讛谉 讻砖注专 讛讝讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜


The baraita continues: And he may contract with them according to the low market rate, i.e., he may set a price for the gifts that he will separate in the future based on either their value at the time of the loan, or their value when they will be separated, whichever is lower. And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest, meaning that if the market rate falls, it will not be considered as though they are repaying in excess of the amount of the loan. And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan; even after the Sabbatical Year, the lender may continue to collect his debt in this manner.


讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇 讛讗讘讜讚


The baraita continues: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he may not renege. If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, as he thought that he would not need to separate any teruma or tithes and therefore thought that he would not collect payment for the loan, although it later became clear that he was mistaken, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of one鈥檚 loan that one had thought lost. Once he despaired of retrieving the loan, the sum of the loan is permanently acquired by the borrowers and the lender may not use the tithes and teruma to serve as repayment.


讗诪专 诪专 驻讜住拽 注诪讛诐 讻砖注专 讛讝讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讻诪讬 砖驻住拽 讚诪讬


The Gemara clarifies the rulings of the baraita: The Master said: He may contract with them according to the low market rate. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even though he did not contract explicitly that he would use the lower market price, he is considered like one who did so contract and may do so anyway.


讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转


The baraita also teaches: And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: Since, when the priest or Levite has no teruma or tithes that he received from the creditor, e.g., when the grain in the field did not sprout due to a drought, he does not give anything to the creditor in repayment of the loan, this indicates that it is not a true loan. Therefore, when the priest or Levite has teruma and tithes, this also is not subject to the prohibition of interest.


讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬讙讜砖


The baraita also teaches: And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan. The Gemara explains: The reason is that concerning this loan, one cannot read the verse stated with regard to the cancellation of debts by the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: 鈥淗e shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since in any event one cannot claim repayment of this type of loan, it is not addressed by the verse in question.


讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讻讛谉 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讞讜讝专 讚转谞谉 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜


The baraita also teaches: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he cannot renege. Rav Pappa said: They taught this only with regard to a homeowner, i.e., an owner of produce, who wishes to renege on his agreement with a priest. In that situation, the homeowner cannot demand repayment of the loan with money. However, with regard to a priest who wishes to renege on his agreement with a homeowner, if he seeks to renege, he may renege. What is the reason for this? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 44a): In any transaction, if the purchaser gave the seller money but did not yet pull the produce, then the seller can renege on the sale. Here, since the priest received money and the homeowner did not yet formally acquire the produce, the priest can renege on the agreement.


谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇 讛讗讘讜讚 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗拽讜谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗拽谞转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The baraita also teaches: If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of a loan that he had thought lost. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as he is no longer owed the money? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the seeds produced stalks and became dried out. Lest you say that growth of stalks is a significant matter, as there is a chance that the produce will still grow and so he does not fully despair, the baraita teaches us that even in such a situation, since the produce is very unlikely to recover, he does despair of retrieving the loan.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪转讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜转讜 讛砖讘讟 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讜 讘讞讝拽转 注谞讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讞讝拽转 注谞讬讬 注讜诇诐


搂 It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to one who lends money to a priest or to a Levite in court and they died before repaying the loan, he separates teruma and tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that there is one from that tribe who inherited from them, and he need not confirm that the deceased priest or Levite has immediate heirs. He then continues the arrangement based on the transfer of the debt to the heirs. And if he lent money to a poor person in court, and the poor person died before repaying the loan, the creditor separates tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that the poor of the Jewish people would agree to continue the arrangement. Rabbi A岣i says: It is with the presumption that the poor of the world would agree to continue the arrangement.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the opinion of Rabbi A岣i? Rabbi A岣i too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注谞讬讬 讻讜转讬讬诐


The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them where the only poor people to be found are poor Samaritans. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, they are not considered to be converts (see Kiddushin 75b), and one may not continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people. According to Rabbi A岣i, they are considered converts, and one may continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people.


讛注砖讬专 讛注谞讬 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讜 讜讝讻讛 讛诇讛 讘诪讛 砖讘讬讚讜


It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that if the poor person became wealthy then the homeowner may no longer separate tithes based on his outstanding loan, and the borrower, who is now wealthy, acquires the money remaining in his possession. This is because from the outset the understanding was that the loan would be repaid only by separating the poor man鈥檚 tithe.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪讬转讛 讚注讘讜讚 转拽谞转讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注砖讬专讜转 讚诇讗 注讘讜讚 转拽谞转讗 诪讬转讛 砖讻讬讞讗 注砖讬专讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞讘专讱 诪讬转 讗砖专 讗讬转注砖专 诇讗 转讗砖专


The Gemara asks: And according to the Sages, what is different about death, when the poor man dies, that they instituted an ordinance to enable the homeowner to continue to separate tithes based on other poor people, and what is different about wealth, when the poor man becomes wealthy, that they did not institute an ordinance? The Gemara answers: Death is common, whereas wealth is not common, and the Sages did not enact an ordinance for an uncommon circumstance. Rav Pappa said: This explains the folk saying that people say: If one says to you that your friend died, then believe it; but if one says to you that your friend became wealthy, do not believe it until it has been proven.


诪转 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讬专砖讜 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讬讜专砖讬谉 讚诇讗 讬专转讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬专砖讜 拽专拽注 讜诇讗 砖讬专砖讜 讻住驻讬诐


搂 The mishna teaches that if the priest or Levite died, the lender needs to obtain permission from the heirs to continue the arrangement. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this is referring to heirs who inherited. The Gemara asks: And are there heirs who do not inherit? What is meant by the expression: Heirs who inherit? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This means heirs who inherited land, as one can collect debts from land bequeathed by a borrower, and not heirs who inherited money, as lenders cannot collect debts from money bequeathed by a borrower.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛谞讬讞 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬讞 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐


With regard to this matter Rabbi Yonatan says: If the priest left his heirs enough land to fill a needle, i.e., a minimal amount, then the homeowner collects, i.e., separates teruma, in the amount of produce that has the value of a full needle of land. If he left enough land to fill an ax, i.e., a larger amount, then the homeowner collects the value of a full ax of land. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he left for his heirs enough land to fill a needle, the homeowner collects the value of a full ax of land.


讜讻诪注砖讛 讚拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗讘讬讬


And this is like the incident involving the small portion of land in the court of Abaye. The children of a deceased man had inherited a small field that was worth only a fraction of the debt that their father had owed. The creditor seized the land in payment of the debt, and Abaye ruled that even after the orphans pay the creditor the value of the land to repurchase it, the creditor can seize the land again and the orphans will have to pay for it again, to have it returned, until the entire debt has been repaid.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:2): With regard to an Israelite who said to a Levite: There is tithe of yours in my possession that I separated from my produce on your behalf, one is not concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it, i.e., the one-tenth of the tithe that is given to the priest and forbidden to both the Levite and the Israelite; rather it is assumed to be only first tithe. However, if he said to him: There is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, then one is concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Abaye said: This is what it is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to a Levite: There is tithe of yours in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it, then one is not concerned that perhaps the Levite converted the tithe that is now in the possession of the Israelite into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere. Since the Israelite did not specify how much tithe of the Levite鈥檚 he had, the Levite would not know how much of his other tithe could be exempted from teruma of the tithe by converting this tithe into teruma of the tithe. But if an Israelite said to a Levite: There is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it, then one is concerned that since the Levite knows the amount of the tithe, perhaps he converted it into the teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere.


讗讟讜 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚砖拽诇讬 讚诪讬 讜诪砖讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专


The Gemara questions Abaye鈥檚 explanation: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people, who take money in exchange for the tithe and afterward convert it into the teruma of the tithe? Once the Levite takes money in exchange for the tithe, it is no longer his to convert it into teruma of the tithe. Why would the baraita address the case of a Levite who acts in this fashion?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 讗讘讬讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 讗讘讬讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


Rather, Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Idi, said that this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to the son of a Levite: There is tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, about which I had informed him while he was still alive; here is money in exchange for it, one is not concerned that perhaps before his death his father converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he had elsewhere, and the son may accept the money. But if an Israelite said to the son of a Levite: There is a kor of tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it; then one is concerned that perhaps his father converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere, and the son may not accept the money.


讜讻讬 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝


The Gemara questions Rav Mesharshiyya鈥檚 explanation: Why is there a concern that the father may have converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he had elsewhere? If one has produce that needs to have teruma or teruma of the tithe separated from it, and he wants to perform the separation from other produce, to exempt all the produce, the Sages established that the other produce must be situated nearby. And are 岣verim, who are meticulous in their observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of teruma and tithes, suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce they seek to exempt?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 诪注砖专 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讜 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪转拽谉 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讜 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬抓 转拽讜谞讬 转拽谞讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转


Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the son of an Israelite who said to a Levite: This is what my father told me, that there is tithe of yours in my possession, or that there is tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, then one is concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it that presumably was never separated. Since it is not a set amount, the homeowner would not have rendered the tithe fit for him by separating the teruma of the tithe. But if the son of an Israelite said to a Levite: My father told me that there is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, or that there is a kor of tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, then one is not concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it. Since it is a set amount, the homeowner is assumed to have rendered the tithe fit by separating the teruma of the tithe.


讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇转专讜诐 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讗讬谉 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐


The Gemara questions Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation: And does the homeowner have permission to separate the teruma of the tithe from the tithe of the Levite? The Levite is the one who is required to separate the teruma of the tithe and to give it to a priest. The Gemara answers: Yes; the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gamla. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gamla says: The verse states concerning the teruma of the tithe: 鈥淎nd the gift that you set apart [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor鈥 (Numbers 18:27).


  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 29-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if an agent who is bringing a Get from within Israel gets sick, he...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 30: You Can Assume People Stay Alive

A new mishnah! On the concept of "chazakah" - including trusting that people are still alive. But what if the...

Gittin 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 30

讻讬 诪砖讜讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讬讞 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜


When the court appoints a second agent, must they do so in the presence of the first agent, or may it be when not in his presence? He then resolves it: The second agent may be appointed either in his presence or not in his presence. Similarly, they sent from there, from Eretz Yisrael, this ruling: The court may appoint another agent either in the presence of the first agent or not in his presence.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗


搂 The Gemara relates another incident, involving a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted a bill of divorce: If I do not arrive from now until thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of the thirtieth day, but he was prevented from crossing the river by the fact that the ferry was located on the other side of the river, so he did not cross the river within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived. Shmuel said: That is not considered to be an arrival, even though it is clear that he intended to arrive, so the bill of divorce is valid.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 驻讬讬住谞讗 诇讛 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗讝诇 驻讬讬住讛 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗


The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who said to agents with whom he had deposited a bill of divorce: If I do not appease my wife within thirty days, let this be a bill of divorce. He went to appease her, but she was not appeased. Rav Yosef said: Did he give her a large vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars but she was not appeased? Although his inability to appease her was a result of his lack of financial means, since he did not properly fulfill his condition to appease her, the bill of divorce is valid.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬讚讬 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讛 讛讗 驻讬讬住讛 讜诇讗 讗讬驻讬讬住讗


There are those who say a different version of the statement, that Rav Yosef said: Did he need to give her a vessel full of dinars in order to appease her? This is a situation where he attempted to appease her, but she was not appeased. Therefore, he did fulfill his condition, and the bill of divorce is not effective, as it is not his fault that she was not appeased.


讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉


The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: This second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control have legal standing with regard to bills of divorce. Therefore, the bill of divorce is not valid, as the husband did all he could to appease her. This first version, in which the bill of divorce is valid, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诪讞诇拽谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖诪讗 诪转 讛讻讛谉 讗讜 讛诇讜讬 讗讜 讛注砖讬专 讛注谞讬


MISHNA: The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person, with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the teruma and tithes separated from the produce, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money with the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that perhaps the priest or the Levite died in the interim, or that the poor person became rich and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man鈥檚 tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate teruma and tithes.


诪转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 讗诐 讛诇讜讜谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉


If in fact they died, then he must obtain permission from the heirs in order to continue the arrangement. However, if he lent money to the deceased, and he stipulated in the presence of the court that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.


讙诪壮 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗转讜 诇讬讚讬讛


GEMARA: The mishna assumes that the priest, Levite, and poor person acquire the teruma and tithes that the creditor separates from his produce, but they agree at the time of the loan that the tithes and teruma will then be acquired by the creditor as payment of their debt. The Gemara asks: And can the priest, Levite, and poor person transfer possession of the terumot or tithes back to the creditor even though the produce did not come into their possession?


讗诪专 专讘 讘诪讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诇讜讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘诪讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注砖讜 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜讻讛 讻讝讜讻讛


Rav says: This is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites, i.e., people who have an arrangement with a specific priest or Levite to give him their teruma or tithes. The specific priest or Levite therefore has a presumptive status of ownership of the tithes or teruma and is considered to have acquired them. And Shmuel says: This is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others, who acquire the teruma and tithes on their behalf. The lender is then able to reclaim the gifts as repayment of the loan. Ulla said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says in other contexts: The Sages, by means of an ordinance, rendered one who does not acquire like one who acquires. Here, too, the Sages instituted an ordinance to enable this arrangement.


讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪讻专讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘诪讝讻讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻注讜诇讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉


The Gemara explains why each of the aforementioned Sages disagreed with the others. All the other Sages, i.e., Shmuel and Ulla, do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Rav, because the mishna does not teach explicitly that the halakha is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites. Rav and Ulla do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel because the mishna does not teach that this halakha is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others. Rav and Shmuel also do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Ulla because we do not establish the mishna to be stated in accordance with an individual opinion, in this case Rabbi Yosei; rather, the assumption is that the ruling of the mishna is written in accordance with the majority opinion.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诪讞诇拽谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谉


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, with the presumption that they are still alive.


讜驻讜住拽 注诪讛谉 讻砖注专 讛讝讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜


The baraita continues: And he may contract with them according to the low market rate, i.e., he may set a price for the gifts that he will separate in the future based on either their value at the time of the loan, or their value when they will be separated, whichever is lower. And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest, meaning that if the market rate falls, it will not be considered as though they are repaying in excess of the amount of the loan. And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan; even after the Sabbatical Year, the lender may continue to collect his debt in this manner.


讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇 讛讗讘讜讚


The baraita continues: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he may not renege. If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, as he thought that he would not need to separate any teruma or tithes and therefore thought that he would not collect payment for the loan, although it later became clear that he was mistaken, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of one鈥檚 loan that one had thought lost. Once he despaired of retrieving the loan, the sum of the loan is permanently acquired by the borrowers and the lender may not use the tithes and teruma to serve as repayment.


讗诪专 诪专 驻讜住拽 注诪讛诐 讻砖注专 讛讝讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讻诪讬 砖驻住拽 讚诪讬


The Gemara clarifies the rulings of the baraita: The Master said: He may contract with them according to the low market rate. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even though he did not contract explicitly that he would use the lower market price, he is considered like one who did so contract and may do so anyway.


讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转


The baraita also teaches: And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: Since, when the priest or Levite has no teruma or tithes that he received from the creditor, e.g., when the grain in the field did not sprout due to a drought, he does not give anything to the creditor in repayment of the loan, this indicates that it is not a true loan. Therefore, when the priest or Levite has teruma and tithes, this also is not subject to the prohibition of interest.


讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬讙讜砖


The baraita also teaches: And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan. The Gemara explains: The reason is that concerning this loan, one cannot read the verse stated with regard to the cancellation of debts by the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: 鈥淗e shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since in any event one cannot claim repayment of this type of loan, it is not addressed by the verse in question.


讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讻讛谉 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讞讜讝专 讚转谞谉 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜


The baraita also teaches: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he cannot renege. Rav Pappa said: They taught this only with regard to a homeowner, i.e., an owner of produce, who wishes to renege on his agreement with a priest. In that situation, the homeowner cannot demand repayment of the loan with money. However, with regard to a priest who wishes to renege on his agreement with a homeowner, if he seeks to renege, he may renege. What is the reason for this? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 44a): In any transaction, if the purchaser gave the seller money but did not yet pull the produce, then the seller can renege on the sale. Here, since the priest received money and the homeowner did not yet formally acquire the produce, the priest can renege on the agreement.


谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇 讛讗讘讜讚 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗拽讜谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗拽谞转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The baraita also teaches: If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of a loan that he had thought lost. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as he is no longer owed the money? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the seeds produced stalks and became dried out. Lest you say that growth of stalks is a significant matter, as there is a chance that the produce will still grow and so he does not fully despair, the baraita teaches us that even in such a situation, since the produce is very unlikely to recover, he does despair of retrieving the loan.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 诪注讜转 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪转讜 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜转讜 讛砖讘讟 讜讗转 讛注谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讜 讘讞讝拽转 注谞讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讞讝拽转 注谞讬讬 注讜诇诐


搂 It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to one who lends money to a priest or to a Levite in court and they died before repaying the loan, he separates teruma and tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that there is one from that tribe who inherited from them, and he need not confirm that the deceased priest or Levite has immediate heirs. He then continues the arrangement based on the transfer of the debt to the heirs. And if he lent money to a poor person in court, and the poor person died before repaying the loan, the creditor separates tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that the poor of the Jewish people would agree to continue the arrangement. Rabbi A岣i says: It is with the presumption that the poor of the world would agree to continue the arrangement.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the opinion of Rabbi A岣i? Rabbi A岣i too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注谞讬讬 讻讜转讬讬诐


The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them where the only poor people to be found are poor Samaritans. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, they are not considered to be converts (see Kiddushin 75b), and one may not continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people. According to Rabbi A岣i, they are considered converts, and one may continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people.


讛注砖讬专 讛注谞讬 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讜 讜讝讻讛 讛诇讛 讘诪讛 砖讘讬讚讜


It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that if the poor person became wealthy then the homeowner may no longer separate tithes based on his outstanding loan, and the borrower, who is now wealthy, acquires the money remaining in his possession. This is because from the outset the understanding was that the loan would be repaid only by separating the poor man鈥檚 tithe.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪讬转讛 讚注讘讜讚 转拽谞转讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注砖讬专讜转 讚诇讗 注讘讜讚 转拽谞转讗 诪讬转讛 砖讻讬讞讗 注砖讬专讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞讘专讱 诪讬转 讗砖专 讗讬转注砖专 诇讗 转讗砖专


The Gemara asks: And according to the Sages, what is different about death, when the poor man dies, that they instituted an ordinance to enable the homeowner to continue to separate tithes based on other poor people, and what is different about wealth, when the poor man becomes wealthy, that they did not institute an ordinance? The Gemara answers: Death is common, whereas wealth is not common, and the Sages did not enact an ordinance for an uncommon circumstance. Rav Pappa said: This explains the folk saying that people say: If one says to you that your friend died, then believe it; but if one says to you that your friend became wealthy, do not believe it until it has been proven.


诪转 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讬专砖讜 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讬讜专砖讬谉 讚诇讗 讬专转讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬专砖讜 拽专拽注 讜诇讗 砖讬专砖讜 讻住驻讬诐


搂 The mishna teaches that if the priest or Levite died, the lender needs to obtain permission from the heirs to continue the arrangement. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this is referring to heirs who inherited. The Gemara asks: And are there heirs who do not inherit? What is meant by the expression: Heirs who inherit? Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This means heirs who inherited land, as one can collect debts from land bequeathed by a borrower, and not heirs who inherited money, as lenders cannot collect debts from money bequeathed by a borrower.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛谞讬讞 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬讞 诪诇讗 诪讞讟 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讗 拽专讚讜诐


With regard to this matter Rabbi Yonatan says: If the priest left his heirs enough land to fill a needle, i.e., a minimal amount, then the homeowner collects, i.e., separates teruma, in the amount of produce that has the value of a full needle of land. If he left enough land to fill an ax, i.e., a larger amount, then the homeowner collects the value of a full ax of land. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he left for his heirs enough land to fill a needle, the homeowner collects the value of a full ax of land.


讜讻诪注砖讛 讚拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗讘讬讬


And this is like the incident involving the small portion of land in the court of Abaye. The children of a deceased man had inherited a small field that was worth only a fraction of the debt that their father had owed. The creditor seized the land in payment of the debt, and Abaye ruled that even after the orphans pay the creditor the value of the land to repurchase it, the creditor can seize the land again and the orphans will have to pay for it again, to have it returned, until the entire debt has been repaid.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:2): With regard to an Israelite who said to a Levite: There is tithe of yours in my possession that I separated from my produce on your behalf, one is not concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it, i.e., the one-tenth of the tithe that is given to the priest and forbidden to both the Levite and the Israelite; rather it is assumed to be only first tithe. However, if he said to him: There is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, then one is concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Abaye said: This is what it is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to a Levite: There is tithe of yours in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it, then one is not concerned that perhaps the Levite converted the tithe that is now in the possession of the Israelite into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere. Since the Israelite did not specify how much tithe of the Levite鈥檚 he had, the Levite would not know how much of his other tithe could be exempted from teruma of the tithe by converting this tithe into teruma of the tithe. But if an Israelite said to a Levite: There is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it, then one is concerned that since the Levite knows the amount of the tithe, perhaps he converted it into the teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere.


讗讟讜 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚砖拽诇讬 讚诪讬 讜诪砖讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专


The Gemara questions Abaye鈥檚 explanation: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people, who take money in exchange for the tithe and afterward convert it into the teruma of the tithe? Once the Levite takes money in exchange for the tithe, it is no longer his to convert it into teruma of the tithe. Why would the baraita address the case of a Levite who acts in this fashion?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 讗讘讬讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讬诇讱 讚诪讬讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗讜 讗讘讬讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


Rather, Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Idi, said that this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to the son of a Levite: There is tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, about which I had informed him while he was still alive; here is money in exchange for it, one is not concerned that perhaps before his death his father converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he had elsewhere, and the son may accept the money. But if an Israelite said to the son of a Levite: There is a kor of tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, and here is money in exchange for it; then one is concerned that perhaps his father converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he has elsewhere, and the son may not accept the money.


讜讻讬 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝


The Gemara questions Rav Mesharshiyya鈥檚 explanation: Why is there a concern that the father may have converted it into teruma of the tithe for tithes that he had elsewhere? If one has produce that needs to have teruma or teruma of the tithe separated from it, and he wants to perform the separation from other produce, to exempt all the produce, the Sages established that the other produce must be situated nearby. And are 岣verim, who are meticulous in their observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of teruma and tithes, suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce they seek to exempt?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜讬 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 诪注砖专 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讜 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪转拽谉 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讜 讻讜专 诪注砖专 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬抓 转拽讜谞讬 转拽谞讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转


Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the son of an Israelite who said to a Levite: This is what my father told me, that there is tithe of yours in my possession, or that there is tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, then one is concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it that presumably was never separated. Since it is not a set amount, the homeowner would not have rendered the tithe fit for him by separating the teruma of the tithe. But if the son of an Israelite said to a Levite: My father told me that there is a kor of tithe of yours in my possession, or that there is a kor of tithe of your father鈥檚 in my possession, then one is not concerned about the teruma of the tithe that is in it. Since it is a set amount, the homeowner is assumed to have rendered the tithe fit by separating the teruma of the tithe.


讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇转专讜诐 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讗讬谉 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐


The Gemara questions Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation: And does the homeowner have permission to separate the teruma of the tithe from the tithe of the Levite? The Levite is the one who is required to separate the teruma of the tithe and to give it to a priest. The Gemara answers: Yes; the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gamla. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gamla says: The verse states concerning the teruma of the tithe: 鈥淎nd the gift that you set apart [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor鈥 (Numbers 18:27).


Scroll To Top