Gittin 59

כי משוו ב"ד שליח בפניו או שלא בפניו הדר פשטה בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו שלחו מתם בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו:

When the <i>Beth din</i> 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.

ההוא דאמר אי לא אתינא עד תלתין יומין ליהוי גיטא אתא ופסקיה מברא אמר להו חזו דאתאי חזו דאתאי אמר שמואל לא שמיה מתיא

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹</span>

ההוא דאמר להו אי לא פייסנא לה עד תלתין יומין ליהוי גיטא אזל פייסה ולא איפייסא אמר רב יוסף מי יהיב לה תרקבא דדינרי ולא איפייסא

A certain man said to the <i>Beth din</i>, 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 bag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a tarkabful (two kabs)'. ');">²</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף מידי תרקבא דדינרי בעי למיתב לה הא פייסה ולא איפייסא

of gold coins and yet not been able to appease her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., has he done his very best? ');">³</span>

הא כמאן דאמר יש אונס בגיטין הא כמאן דאמר אין אונס בגיטין:

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he can plead that he has not a bag of gold coins. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המלוה מעות את הכהן ואת הלוי ואת העני להיות מפריש עליהן מחלקן מפריש עליהן בחזקת שהן קיימין ואינו חושש שמא מת הכהן או הלוי או העשיר העני

and the [former] with the view that no such allowance is made.

מתו צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשים אם הלוון בפני ב"ד אינו צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשין:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.] ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואף על גב דלא אתו לידיה

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 <i>BETH DIN</i>, HE NEED NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE HEIRS.

אמר רב במכרי כהונה ולויה ושמואל אמר במזכה להם ע"י אחרים עולא אמר הא מני ר' יוסי היא דאמר עשו את שאינו זוכה כזוכה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Can he do this] even if the dues have not come into the hands [of those who are entitled to them]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in this case they do not yet belong to them, so how can they he given back in payment of the debt? ');">⁶</span>

כולהו כרב לא אמרי במכרי לא קתני כשמואל לא קאמרי במזכה לא קתני כעולא נמי לא אמרי כיחידאה לא מוקמינן

— Rab said: [The Mishnah speaks of] priests and Levites with whom he is familiar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ר המלוה מעות את הכהן ואת הלוי ואת העני להיות מפריש עליהן מחלקן מפריש עליהן בחזקת שהן קיימין

Samuel says: He conveys possession to them through a third party.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span>

ופוסק עמהן כשער הזול ואין בו משום רבית ואין שביעית משמטתו

'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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 59b, and B.M. 12b. ');">⁹</span>

ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר נתייאשו הבעלים אין מפריש עליהם לפי שאין מפרישין על האבוד

[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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as R. Jose here, where the majority do not concur with him. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר מר פוסק עמהם כשער הזול פשיטא הא קא משמע לן אף על פי שלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹¹</span>

ואין בו משום רבית מאי טעמא כיון דכי לית ליה לא יהיב ליה כי אית ליה נמי אין בו משום רבית

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 recovering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because his corn appeared to be blighted. and the condition was that he should recoup himself from the crop of that year. ');">¹²</span>

ואין שביעית משמטתו דלא קרינא ביה (דברים טו, ב) לא יגוש

[but afterwards found that he could recover],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he obtained a harvest after all. ');">¹³</span>

ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא בעל הבית בכהן אבל כהן בבעל הבית אם בא לחזור חוזר דתנן נתן לו מעות ולא משך הימנו פירות יכול לחזור בו:

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.'

נתייאשו הבעלים אין מפריש עליהן לפי שאין מפרישין על האבוד: פשיטא לא צריכא דאקון מהו דתימא אקנתא מילתא היא קמ"ל:

The Master says: 'He may stipulate to get the benefit of a lower market price.' Surely this is self-evident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What objection can there be to such a proceeding? V. B.M. 72b. ');">¹⁴</span>

תניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר המלוה מעות את הכהן ואת הלוי בב"ד ומתו מפריש עליהן בחזקת אותו השבט ואת העני בבית דין ומת מפריש עליו בחזקת עניי ישראל ר' אחי אומר בחזקת עניי עולם

— He informs us that even though he did not stipulate this expressly, he is reckoned as having done so.

מאי בינייהו

'This is not reckoned as interest': why so? — Since when he has nothing he does not give, when he has something [and gives less]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., keeps more for himself ');">¹⁵</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 2; since he cannot claim anything from the debtors. ');">¹⁶</span> '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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 44a. ');">¹⁷</span> If he [the purchaser] has given him [the seller] money but has not yet pulled into his possession the produce, he can retract.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> '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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if the corn was in the stalk it has a chance of recovering. ');">¹⁹</span> 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 <i>Beth din</i> and they die [before repaying], he sets aside dues for them as belonging to the whole tribe [and recovers therefrom].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rest of the tribe being regarded as his heirs, and so liable for the debt. ');">²⁰</span> [If he lent] to a poor man before the <i>Beth din</i> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Poor of the world'. ');">²¹</span> What is the practical difference between them?