פירוש על בבא קמא 15:7
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
[Both] this [braita] and that [braita]. The Gemara quotes a Braita that says: if a person owned intermediate and poor quality fields, the victim of his damages and his creditor collect from the intermediate-quality. If he owes a k’suboh it is paid from the poorest- quality.
In a second Braita with the same circumstances, a different formula is given. The victim of damages collects from the medium-quality. The creditor and the marriage contact are paid from the poorest-quality fields.
Debtor has intermediate and poor-quality fields:
Braita A
Medium quality: Damages Creditor
Poorest Quality: K’suboh
Braita B
Medium quality: Damages
Poorest quality: Creditor K’suboh
The Gemara offers four ways of reconciling this contradiction. Our Tosafot will be focusing on the second way.
1) Both Braitas hold that we determine finest, medium and poorest qualities according to the damager’s fields. Braita A is discussing a situation where at the time of the loan the debtor owned even finer fields. Since he owned finer fields, the debt at the outset was payable from the medium-quality fields. Even after the finer fields were sold, and his intermediate quality becomes his finest, the debt must be paid from what is now his finest because initially a lien was established on those fields. In Braita B, there never were any finer fields. The medium-quality fields are his best and the creditor is not entitled to collect from the debtor’s best. He must therefore collect from the poorest fields.
2) In both Braita A and Braita B, the debtor did not have finer fields at the time of the loan which were subsequently sold. Both Braita A and Braita B hold that the quality of the field is measured by world standards. Braita A is speaking about where his intermediate- quality is equal to the world’s intermediate quality and he pays his creditor and damages from the medium-quality. Braita B is speaking about where his medium-quality is equal to the finest quality by world standards. The creditor is not entitled to the finest fields, so he must accept payment from the poorest. The damages are of course paid from the finest. It is this second answer that our Tosafot will be discussing.
3) Both Braitas are speaking of where the debtor’s medium quality is equal to the world’s medium-quality. Braita A holds that payment is made according to world standards and therefore the creditor is paid with medium-quality fields even though they are the finest of the debtor. Braita B holds that payment is made according to the debtor’s fields. Since the field in question is the debtor’s best the creditor who is not entitled to the finest must collect from the poorest.
4) Ulo says in Chapter Haneezokin that by Torah law the creditor can collect only from the poorest. The Rabonon were concerned that potential lenders would be discouraged by the fact that they could only collect from the poorest fields and instituted a rabbinic law allowing them to collect from the intermediate quality fields. Braita A subscribes to Ulo’s ruling while Braita B rejects it. Rashi holds that he rejects Ulo’s ruling altogether and holds that there is no rabbinic law that creditor’s may collect from the intermediate- quality fields. Tosafot disagrees with Rashi’s understanding and hold that in general he agrees with Ulo, it is only in limited circumstances that he disagrees with Ulo.
This is our text of the Gemara’s second solution: Both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of where the owner did not have finer fields that were later sold. Braita B is speaking about when his intermediate quality is equal to the world’s finest. Since a creditor is not entitled to the finest, he can now be paid with the poorest. Braita A is speaking of when his medium quality is not equal to the world’s finest. Since they are not equal to the worlds finest they are classified as medium-quality and the creditor is entitled to be paid from the intermediate-quality.
Although the Gemara introduced this solution with the explanation that in both Braitas the debtor did not have any finer fields that were sold, there is a major difference between the circumstances of Braita A as opposed to Braita B, as Tosafot will now explain.
And that which the Gemara said that both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of when he did not have finer fields that had been sold, the Gemara does not mean to say that both Braitas are speaking of where he did not have any finer fields at all, for if that were so, in Braita B which is speaking of where his middle quality is equal to the world’s finest, why are they called middle-quality? They are his finest, since you are assuming that he never had any better fields and they are the finest by world standards. Why are they referred to as middle-quality?
Rather, this is what the Gemara means, both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of where he did not have finer fields that were sold, what this means is: that they are not speaking of where he had finer qualities that were sold, but one Braita, Braita A, is speaking of when he never had any finer fields at all. His finest is equal to the world’s middle-quality and therefore the creditor is paid from his finest which is equal to the world’s middle-quality. And Braita B is speaking of when he had finer fields and still has them. His middle-quality is equal to the worlds finest and they cannot be collected by a creditor. He must collect from the poorest quality. They are referred to as middle-quality because he owns even finer fields and they are in fact, his middle quality.
According to this explanation, we need not say that either of the Braitas is speaking of when a field was sold. In Braita A he never had any finer fields. In Braita B he had finer fields and still has them. Nothing was sold in either Braita.
And both Braitas hold that the qualities of fields are determined by world standards. That is why in Braita A the debtor pays with what is middle-quality according to world standards, even though they are his own finest. In Braita B the debtor pays with his own poorest, since his own middle-quality is equal to the world’s finest.
In a second Braita with the same circumstances, a different formula is given. The victim of damages collects from the medium-quality. The creditor and the marriage contact are paid from the poorest-quality fields.
Debtor has intermediate and poor-quality fields:
Braita A
Medium quality: Damages Creditor
Poorest Quality: K’suboh
Braita B
Medium quality: Damages
Poorest quality: Creditor K’suboh
The Gemara offers four ways of reconciling this contradiction. Our Tosafot will be focusing on the second way.
1) Both Braitas hold that we determine finest, medium and poorest qualities according to the damager’s fields. Braita A is discussing a situation where at the time of the loan the debtor owned even finer fields. Since he owned finer fields, the debt at the outset was payable from the medium-quality fields. Even after the finer fields were sold, and his intermediate quality becomes his finest, the debt must be paid from what is now his finest because initially a lien was established on those fields. In Braita B, there never were any finer fields. The medium-quality fields are his best and the creditor is not entitled to collect from the debtor’s best. He must therefore collect from the poorest fields.
2) In both Braita A and Braita B, the debtor did not have finer fields at the time of the loan which were subsequently sold. Both Braita A and Braita B hold that the quality of the field is measured by world standards. Braita A is speaking about where his intermediate- quality is equal to the world’s intermediate quality and he pays his creditor and damages from the medium-quality. Braita B is speaking about where his medium-quality is equal to the finest quality by world standards. The creditor is not entitled to the finest fields, so he must accept payment from the poorest. The damages are of course paid from the finest. It is this second answer that our Tosafot will be discussing.
3) Both Braitas are speaking of where the debtor’s medium quality is equal to the world’s medium-quality. Braita A holds that payment is made according to world standards and therefore the creditor is paid with medium-quality fields even though they are the finest of the debtor. Braita B holds that payment is made according to the debtor’s fields. Since the field in question is the debtor’s best the creditor who is not entitled to the finest must collect from the poorest.
4) Ulo says in Chapter Haneezokin that by Torah law the creditor can collect only from the poorest. The Rabonon were concerned that potential lenders would be discouraged by the fact that they could only collect from the poorest fields and instituted a rabbinic law allowing them to collect from the intermediate quality fields. Braita A subscribes to Ulo’s ruling while Braita B rejects it. Rashi holds that he rejects Ulo’s ruling altogether and holds that there is no rabbinic law that creditor’s may collect from the intermediate- quality fields. Tosafot disagrees with Rashi’s understanding and hold that in general he agrees with Ulo, it is only in limited circumstances that he disagrees with Ulo.
This is our text of the Gemara’s second solution: Both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of where the owner did not have finer fields that were later sold. Braita B is speaking about when his intermediate quality is equal to the world’s finest. Since a creditor is not entitled to the finest, he can now be paid with the poorest. Braita A is speaking of when his medium quality is not equal to the world’s finest. Since they are not equal to the worlds finest they are classified as medium-quality and the creditor is entitled to be paid from the intermediate-quality.
Although the Gemara introduced this solution with the explanation that in both Braitas the debtor did not have any finer fields that were sold, there is a major difference between the circumstances of Braita A as opposed to Braita B, as Tosafot will now explain.
And that which the Gemara said that both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of when he did not have finer fields that had been sold, the Gemara does not mean to say that both Braitas are speaking of where he did not have any finer fields at all, for if that were so, in Braita B which is speaking of where his middle quality is equal to the world’s finest, why are they called middle-quality? They are his finest, since you are assuming that he never had any better fields and they are the finest by world standards. Why are they referred to as middle-quality?
Rather, this is what the Gemara means, both Braita A and Braita B are speaking of where he did not have finer fields that were sold, what this means is: that they are not speaking of where he had finer qualities that were sold, but one Braita, Braita A, is speaking of when he never had any finer fields at all. His finest is equal to the world’s middle-quality and therefore the creditor is paid from his finest which is equal to the world’s middle-quality. And Braita B is speaking of when he had finer fields and still has them. His middle-quality is equal to the worlds finest and they cannot be collected by a creditor. He must collect from the poorest quality. They are referred to as middle-quality because he owns even finer fields and they are in fact, his middle quality.
According to this explanation, we need not say that either of the Braitas is speaking of when a field was sold. In Braita A he never had any finer fields. In Braita B he had finer fields and still has them. Nothing was sold in either Braita.
And both Braitas hold that the qualities of fields are determined by world standards. That is why in Braita A the debtor pays with what is middle-quality according to world standards, even though they are his own finest. In Braita B the debtor pays with his own poorest, since his own middle-quality is equal to the world’s finest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy