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? 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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Gittin 30
כִּי מְשַׁוּוּ בֵּית דִּין שָׁלִיחַ; בְּפָנָיו, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו? הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.
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.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲתָא וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״, ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״. אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא.
§ 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.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא [מְ]פַיֵּיסְנָא לַהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲזַל פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִי יְהַב לַהּ תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא?!
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִידֵּי תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לַהּ?! הָא פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא.
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.
הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין, הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין.
The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef’s statement: This second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one’s 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’s control have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן; מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ הַלֵּוִי, אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי.
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’s 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.
מֵתוּ – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים; אִם הִלְווֹן בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָתוּ לִידֵיהּ?!
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?
אָמַר רַב: בְּמַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בִּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים. עוּלָּא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עָשׂוּ אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה.
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.
כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַב לָא אָמְרִי – בְּמַכָּרֵי לָא קָתָנֵי. כִּשְׁמוּאֵל לָא קָאָמְרִי – בִּמְזַכֶּה לָא קָתָנֵי. כְּעוּלָּא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי – כִּיחִידָאָה לָא מוֹקְמִינַן.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין;
§ 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.
וּפוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶן כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל; וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית; וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ;
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.
וְאִם בָּא לַחֲזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד.
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’s 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.
אָמַר מָר: פּוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶם כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק – כְּמִי שֶׁפָּסַק דָּמֵי.
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’t 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.
וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית – מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לֵית לֵיהּ – לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.
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.
וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ – דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יִגּוֹשׂ״.
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: “He shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (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.
וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר, אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּכֹהֵן; אֲבָל כֹּהֵן בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – חוֹזֵר. דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת – יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.
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.
נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲקוּן; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲקַנְתָּא מִילְּתָא הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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’t 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.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵתוּ – מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְאֶת הֶעָנִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵת – מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי אַחַי אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי עוֹלָם.
§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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 Aḥai says: It is with the presumption that the poor of the world would agree to continue the arrangement.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai? Rabbi Aḥai too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲנִיֵּי כוּתִיִּים.
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’akov, 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 Aḥai, they are considered converts, and one may continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people.
הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו, וְזָכָה הַלָּה בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ.
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’s tithe.
וְרַבָּנַן, מַאי שְׁנָא לְמִיתָה דַּעֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא לַעֲשִׁירוּת דְּלָא עֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא? מִיתָה שְׁכִיחָא, עֲשִׁירוּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: חַבְרָךְ מִית – אַשַּׁר, אִיתְעַשַּׁר – לָא תְּאַשַּׁר.
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.
מֵת – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת וְכוּ׳: תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ. וּמִי אִיכָּא יוֹרְשִׁין דְּלָא יָרְתִי?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ קַרְקַע, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ כְּסָפִים.
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא מַחַט. מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם;
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 Yoḥanan 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.
וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּקַטִּינָא דְאַבָּיֵי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי: ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ.
§ 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.
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
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’s 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.
אַטּוּ בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּשָׁקְלִי דְּמֵי וּמְשַׁוּוּ לֵיהּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?!
The Gemara questions Abaye’s 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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבֶן לֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, הֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
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’s 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’s 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.
וְכִי נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף?!
The Gemara questions Rav Mesharshiyya’s 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 ḥaverim, 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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״כָּךְ אָמַר לִי אַבָּא: מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קִיץ לָא הֲוָה מְתַקֵּן לֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּקִיץ תַּקּוֹנֵי תַּקְּנֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
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’s 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’s 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.
וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִתְרוֹם תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?! אִין, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ –
The Gemara questions Rav Ashi’s 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: “And the gift that you set apart [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor” (Numbers 18:27).
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Berlin, Germany
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Gittin 30
כִּי מְשַׁוּוּ בֵּית דִּין שָׁלִיחַ; בְּפָנָיו, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו? הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.
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.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲתָא וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״, ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״. אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא.
§ 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.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא [מְ]פַיֵּיסְנָא לַהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲזַל פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִי יְהַב לַהּ תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא?!
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִידֵּי תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לַהּ?! הָא פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא.
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.
הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין, הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין.
The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef’s statement: This second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one’s 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’s control have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן; מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ הַלֵּוִי, אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי.
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’s 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.
מֵתוּ – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים; אִם הִלְווֹן בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָתוּ לִידֵיהּ?!
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?
אָמַר רַב: בְּמַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בִּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים. עוּלָּא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עָשׂוּ אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה.
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.
כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַב לָא אָמְרִי – בְּמַכָּרֵי לָא קָתָנֵי. כִּשְׁמוּאֵל לָא קָאָמְרִי – בִּמְזַכֶּה לָא קָתָנֵי. כְּעוּלָּא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי – כִּיחִידָאָה לָא מוֹקְמִינַן.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין;
§ 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.
וּפוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶן כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל; וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית; וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ;
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.
וְאִם בָּא לַחֲזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד.
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’s 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.
אָמַר מָר: פּוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶם כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק – כְּמִי שֶׁפָּסַק דָּמֵי.
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’t 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.
וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית – מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לֵית לֵיהּ – לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.
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.
וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ – דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יִגּוֹשׂ״.
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: “He shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (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.
וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר, אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּכֹהֵן; אֲבָל כֹּהֵן בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – חוֹזֵר. דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת – יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.
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.
נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲקוּן; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲקַנְתָּא מִילְּתָא הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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’t 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.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵתוּ – מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְאֶת הֶעָנִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵת – מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי אַחַי אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי עוֹלָם.
§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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 Aḥai says: It is with the presumption that the poor of the world would agree to continue the arrangement.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai? Rabbi Aḥai too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲנִיֵּי כוּתִיִּים.
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’akov, 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 Aḥai, they are considered converts, and one may continue the arrangement with them serving as the poor people.
הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו, וְזָכָה הַלָּה בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ.
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’s tithe.
וְרַבָּנַן, מַאי שְׁנָא לְמִיתָה דַּעֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא לַעֲשִׁירוּת דְּלָא עֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא? מִיתָה שְׁכִיחָא, עֲשִׁירוּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: חַבְרָךְ מִית – אַשַּׁר, אִיתְעַשַּׁר – לָא תְּאַשַּׁר.
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.
מֵת – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת וְכוּ׳: תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ. וּמִי אִיכָּא יוֹרְשִׁין דְּלָא יָרְתִי?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ קַרְקַע, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ כְּסָפִים.
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא מַחַט. מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם;
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 Yoḥanan 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.
וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּקַטִּינָא דְאַבָּיֵי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי: ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ.
§ 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.
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
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’s 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.
אַטּוּ בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּשָׁקְלִי דְּמֵי וּמְשַׁוּוּ לֵיהּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?!
The Gemara questions Abaye’s 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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבֶן לֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, הֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
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’s 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’s 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.
וְכִי נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף?!
The Gemara questions Rav Mesharshiyya’s 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 ḥaverim, 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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״כָּךְ אָמַר לִי אַבָּא: מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קִיץ לָא הֲוָה מְתַקֵּן לֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּקִיץ תַּקּוֹנֵי תַּקְּנֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
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’s 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’s 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.
וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִתְרוֹם תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?! אִין, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ –
The Gemara questions Rav Ashi’s 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: “And the gift that you set apart [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor” (Numbers 18:27).
