Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 30a

When the Beth din appoint an agent, do they do so in the presence of the original agent or not in his presence? He himself decided the matter [saying]: They can do so either in his presence or not. [A message] was sent from there [Eretz Yisrael]: [They may do so] either in his presence or not in his presence.

A certain man once said: This shall be a Get if I do not come within thirty days. He did come, but could not get across the river, so he cried out, 'See, I have come, see, I have come.' Samuel said: This is no 'coming'.¹

A certain man said to the Beth din, If I do not make it up with her in thirty days, it will be a Get. He went and tried to make up with her, but she would not be reconciled. Said R. Joseph: Has he offered her a bag²  of gold coins and yet not been able to appease her?³  According to another version, R. Joseph said: Must he offer her a bag of gold coins? He has done his best to make it up with her, but she would not be reconciled. [The latter version] fits in with the view that in the matter of a Get allowance is made for circumstances over which one has no control,⁴  and the [former] with the view that no such allowance is made.

MISHNAH. IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO A PRIEST OR A LEVITE OR A POOR MAN ON CONDITION THAT HE CAN RECOUP HIMSELF FROM THEIR DUES,⁵  HE MAY DO SO, IN THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE, AND HE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANCE THAT THE PRIEST OR THE LEVITE MAY HAVE DIED OR THE POOR MAN MAY HAVE BECOME RICH. IF [HE KNOWS THAT] THEY HAVE DIED, HE MUST OBTAIN THE PERMISSION OF THE HEIRS. IF HE MADE THE LOAN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE BETH DIN, HE NEED NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE HEIRS.

GEMARA. [Can he do this] even if the dues have not come into the hands [of those who are entitled to them]?⁶  — Rab said: [The Mishnah speaks of] priests and Levites with whom he is familiar.⁷  Samuel says: He conveys possession to them through a third party.⁸  'Ulla said: This ruling is based on the view of R. Jose, who said that [in many places] possession is reckoned to have been acquired though strictly speaking it has not been acquired.⁹  [The reason why] all [the authorities] do not concur with Rab is because the Mishnah does not mention [the man's] acquaintance. [The reason why] all do not concur with Samuel is because the Mishnah does not mention transferring possession. [The reason why] all do not concur with 'Ulla is because we do not base a ruling on the opinion of an individual [Rabbi].¹⁰

Our Rabbis have taught: 'If a man lends money to a priest or a Levite or a poor man, on condition that he may recoup himself from their dues, he may do so in the presumption that they are still alive. He may stipulate with them to get the benefit of a lower market price,¹¹  and this is not reckoned as taking interest. The seventh year does not release it. If he desires to retract, he is not permitted to do so. If he gave up all hope of recovering¹²  [but afterwards found that he could recover],¹³  he does not appropriate any dues [in payment of the debt]. because dues are not set aside from that which has been given up as lost.'

The Master says: 'He may stipulate to get the benefit of a lower market price.' Surely this is self-evident?¹⁴  — He informs us that even though he did not stipulate this expressly, he is reckoned as having done so.

'This is not reckoned as interest': why so? — Since when he has nothing he does not give, when he has something [and gives less]¹⁵  this is not counted as interest.

'The seventh year does not release it': because we do not apply here the verse, he shall not press.¹⁶

'If he desires to retract, he is not permitted': R. Papa said: This rule applies only to the owner vis-a-vis the priest, but if the priest wants to retract, he may, as we have learnt:¹⁷  If he [the purchaser] has given him [the seller] money but has not yet pulled into his possession the produce, he can retract.¹⁸

'If the owner has given up all hope of recovering he does not appropriate any dues, because dues are not set aside from that which has been given up as lost': Is not this obvious? — It required to be stated for the case where the corn was in stalk [before it was blighted]. You might think that in that case the corn is counted as something [of value].¹⁹  Now I know [that this is not so].

It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob says: If a man lends a priest or a Levite money in the presence of the Beth din and they die [before repaying], he sets aside dues for them as belonging to the whole tribe [and recovers therefrom].²⁰  [If he lent] to a poor man before the Beth din and he died, he sets aside dues for him as belonging to the poor of Israel [and recovers therefrom]. R. Ahi said: As belonging to all the poor.²¹  What is the practical difference between them?

1. Because allowance is not made in the case of a Get for unforeseen circumstances, or, if it is, this circumstance, not being unusual, should have been provided for.
2. Lit., 'a tarkabful (two kabs)'.
3. I.e., has he done his very best?
4. I.e., he can plead that he has not a bag of gold coins.
5. Lit., 'that he may set apart for them what would be their share', i.e., instead of paying them their dues, heave-offering, tithe, or poor-man's tithe, respectively, he would utilize them as part or whole payment of his debt. He would sell the heave-offering to another priest, since it is forbidden to a lay Israelite, whilst he would retain the tithe or poor-man's tithe for himself, after having set aside the 'heave-offering of the tithe' which too is forbidden to a lay Israelite.]
6. Because in this case they do not yet belong to them, so how can they he given back in payment of the debt?
7. Makkire Kehunah, lit., 'acquaintances of priesthood', to whom he is accustomed to give the dues year by year, so that they have a presumptive ownership without having handled the dues; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 513, n. 11.
8. I.e., he transfers the dues, after setting them aside, to a third party on their behalf, and the latter returns them to him in payment of the debt.
9. V. infra 59b, and B.M. 12b.
10. Such as R. Jose here, where the majority do not concur with him.
11. I.e., if at the time when he sets aside the dues the price is lower than when he lent the money, he may give himself the benefit of the drop by appropriating a larger amount of produce.
12. Because his corn appeared to be blighted. and the condition was that he should recoup himself from the crop of that year.
13. Because he obtained a harvest after all.
14. What objection can there be to such a proceeding? V. B.M. 72b.
15. I.e., keeps more for himself
16. Deut. XV, 2; since he cannot claim anything from the debtors.
17. V. B.M. 44a.
18. The owner is regarded as purchasing the dues from the priest or Levite. The latter has received the money, but the former has not yet handled the goods.
19. Because if the corn was in the stalk it has a chance of recovering.
20. The rest of the tribe being regarded as his heirs, and so liable for the debt.
21. Lit., 'the Poor of the world'.

— Where there are Cuthean poor.¹  If the poor man became rich, he does not set aside dues for him, and that man becomes possessor of what he has.²  Why did the Rabbis safeguard [the lender] in the case of the poor man dying³  and not in the case of his becoming rich?⁴  — It is a common thing for people to die, but not to become rich.⁵  R. Papa said: This is borne out by the common saying: 'If [you hear that] your neighbour has died, believe it: if [you hear that] he has become rich, do not believe it.'

IF HE DIES, HE MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE HEIRS. It has been taught: Rabbi says. Heirs that have inherited. Are there any heirs that do not inherit? — R. Johanan explained it to mean heirs that inherit land⁶  but not money.'⁷  R. Jonathan said: If he left a mere needleful⁸  [of land], the other can recoup himself only to the extent of a needleful,⁹  and if he left an axeful,¹⁰  the other can recoup himself to the extent of an axeful. R. Johanan said: Even if he only left a needleful he can recoup himself to the extent of an axeful,¹¹  as in the incident of the small field of Abaye.¹²

Our Rabbis have taught: If an Israelite says to a Levite, 'I have set aside a tithe for you.' he need not be concerned about the priest's due in the tithe.¹³  If, however, he said, 'I have set aside a kor as tithe for you,' he has to concern himself about the priest's due in the tithe. What does all this mean? — Abaye said: It means this. If an Israelite said to a Levite, 'I have set aside tithe for you, and here is money for it', he has no need to worry lest the Levite should have made¹⁴  that produce the priestly due on produce received by him from elsewhere.¹⁵  If, however, he said, 'I have set aside a kor of tithe for you and here is the money for it', he has to worry lest the Levite should have [already] made it the priestly due on tithe from elsewhere.¹⁶  Are we then dealing with rogues who take money and make it [the produce] priestly due on tithe from elsewhere?¹⁷  — In fact, said R. Mesharsheya the son of R. Idi, [the Baraitha] means this: If the Israelite said to the son of a [deceased] Levite, I have set aside tithe for your father and here is the money for it, he need not worry lest the father had made it priestly due on tithe from elsewhere. If, however, he said, I have set aside a kor of tithe for your father and here is the money, he has to worry lest the father had made it priestly due on tithe from elsewhere.¹⁸  Can we than suspect Haberim¹⁹  of setting aside the priestly due from produce in another place?²⁰  — In fact, said R. Ashi, it means this: If a son of a [deceased] Israelite says to a Levite, My father told me [before his death] that he had set aside tithe for you or for your father, he [the Levite] has to worry about the priest's due in it, since as [the quantity is] indefinite, the owner's father may not have made it available for ordinary use [by setting aside the priestly due in it]. If, however, he says, I have a kor of tithe set aside for you or for your father, there is no need to worry lest the priestly due is still contained in it, since as [the quantity] is definite, he may be sure that the owner made it right [before his death]. But has the owner the right to set aside the terumah from the Levite's tithe? — Yes. Such is the ruling of Abba Eleazar b. Gamala, as it has been taught: Abba Eleazar b. Gamala says. It is written, And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you.²¹

1. And in the opinion of the first Tanna, the Samaritans were not genuine proselytes and could not inherit the poor man who died.
2. I.e., he need not repay the debt.
3. By allowing him to set aside dues and recover.
4. By not forcing the poor man to repay, although he is no longer entitled to any dues.
5. And we do not legislate for exceptional cases.
6. Who are thus liable to pay their father's debts.
7. [For a creditor cannot recover his debt from immovable property of orphans. v. B.K. 8b.]
8. I.e., a mere patch of land.
9. This refers to the case where the loan was made before the Beth din. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H].
10. I.e., enough to be worth working.
11. I.e., the amount of his debt.
12. V. Keth. 91b. A man who owed a hundred zuz left a field worth fifty. The creditor seized it and the heirs induced him to quit it by paying fifty. He again seized it and they again paid. So here, he recovers again and again.
13. V. Num. XVIII, 26, according to which the Levite had himself to set aside a tithe from his own tithe for the priest.
14. [As soon as he had made it over to the owner, before he actually received the money.]
15. Because it was not yet specified.
16. Because it is specific.
17. [Before they receive the money. and so prevent the Israelite from using it. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]
18. After learning that the kor had been set aside for him.
19. V. Glos., s.v. Haber. All Levites were presumed to be Haberim.
20. Lit., 'from that which is not brought near'. It was forbidden to a Haber to say. 'The produce which I have in such-and-such a place shall be terumah for this before me, for fear that produce is not extant at the time.
21. Num. XVIII, 27.