פירוש על בבא קמא 15:10
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
[The other] sage is not of [the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with] the ordinance [cited] by Ulla. The Mishna in Haneezokin (48b) says that a creditor collects his debt from intermediate-quality fields. In our Gemara Ulo teaches us that by Torah law the creditor should collect only from the poorest quality fields. The Sages felt that this would have a negative impact on a borrower’s ability to obtain a loan. The potential lenders would not want to give a loan if their right to collect their debt was limited to the poorest quality. They therefore legislated that a creditor can collect from medium-quality fields.
Why did they not allow a creditor to collect from the finest fields? The Gemara in Haneezokin (49b) answers that question. They felt that an unscrupulous individual would try to take advantage of an unfortunate person who was in need of cash. The lender would offer the unfortunate borrower a loan with the hope that he would not be able to pay the loan and thus the lender would take possession of the finest fields of the borrower. However, since a creditor could collect from the medium- quality, the honest lender would not be discouraged from offering a loan to a person in need of one.
Our Gemara says that the Braita B that says that when a debtor has only intermediate and poor-quality fields the creditor collects from the poorest quality does not hold of Ulo’s rule. Rashi says that he does not hold like the Mishna in Haneezokin and in all cases a creditor collects only from the poorest, even when the debtor owns all three qualities of fields. Tosafot disagrees with Rashi as he will now explain.
The Gemara’s statement that this Braita does not hold of Ulo’s rule was said specifically where the debtor has no finer fields than the medium- quality; in that case these medium-quality fields that he does have are the debtor’s finest.
This can be seen from the Braita’s mentioning that the debtor owned only medium and poorest. It is in this case that the Braita rules the creditor collects from the poorest. This implies that if the debtor owned finer quality fields the creditor does collect from the medium-quality. Tosafot understands that the Braita specifically set up this case of the debtor not owning any finer quality as one where the creditor must take the poorest quality. Where the debtor does own finer quality the creditor collects from the medium-quality fields.
And this Braita holds that since the debtor only has medium and poorest quality, the reason mentioned in Haneezokin that a creditor does not collect from the finest is relevant to the situation of our Braita. The Gemara there says: For what reason does a creditor not collect from the finest? So that he should not gaze upon his neighbor’s beautiful field or beautiful apartment and say: I will hasten and lend him money so that I will collect it, the beautiful field or apartment as payment of my loan. This concern is mentioned there as the reason the creditor does not collect from the finest. Braita B holds that this concern is relevant even where the borrower’s finest field is not the finest by world standards. The creditor cannot collect from the borrower’s finest and must therefore collect only from the borrower’s poorest. Braita A holds that this concern is relevant only where the borrower’s finest are finest by world standards as well, not when they happen to be this borrower’s finest but not the finest by world standards. Since that concern does not apply here, the creditor can collect from the intermediate-quality fields; even though they are the creditor’s finest. According to this fourth solution, both Braitas obviously hold that the designation of qualities is measured by world standards.
Why did they not allow a creditor to collect from the finest fields? The Gemara in Haneezokin (49b) answers that question. They felt that an unscrupulous individual would try to take advantage of an unfortunate person who was in need of cash. The lender would offer the unfortunate borrower a loan with the hope that he would not be able to pay the loan and thus the lender would take possession of the finest fields of the borrower. However, since a creditor could collect from the medium- quality, the honest lender would not be discouraged from offering a loan to a person in need of one.
Our Gemara says that the Braita B that says that when a debtor has only intermediate and poor-quality fields the creditor collects from the poorest quality does not hold of Ulo’s rule. Rashi says that he does not hold like the Mishna in Haneezokin and in all cases a creditor collects only from the poorest, even when the debtor owns all three qualities of fields. Tosafot disagrees with Rashi as he will now explain.
The Gemara’s statement that this Braita does not hold of Ulo’s rule was said specifically where the debtor has no finer fields than the medium- quality; in that case these medium-quality fields that he does have are the debtor’s finest.
This can be seen from the Braita’s mentioning that the debtor owned only medium and poorest. It is in this case that the Braita rules the creditor collects from the poorest. This implies that if the debtor owned finer quality fields the creditor does collect from the medium-quality. Tosafot understands that the Braita specifically set up this case of the debtor not owning any finer quality as one where the creditor must take the poorest quality. Where the debtor does own finer quality the creditor collects from the medium-quality fields.
And this Braita holds that since the debtor only has medium and poorest quality, the reason mentioned in Haneezokin that a creditor does not collect from the finest is relevant to the situation of our Braita. The Gemara there says: For what reason does a creditor not collect from the finest? So that he should not gaze upon his neighbor’s beautiful field or beautiful apartment and say: I will hasten and lend him money so that I will collect it, the beautiful field or apartment as payment of my loan. This concern is mentioned there as the reason the creditor does not collect from the finest. Braita B holds that this concern is relevant even where the borrower’s finest field is not the finest by world standards. The creditor cannot collect from the borrower’s finest and must therefore collect only from the borrower’s poorest. Braita A holds that this concern is relevant only where the borrower’s finest are finest by world standards as well, not when they happen to be this borrower’s finest but not the finest by world standards. Since that concern does not apply here, the creditor can collect from the intermediate-quality fields; even though they are the creditor’s finest. According to this fourth solution, both Braitas obviously hold that the designation of qualities is measured by world standards.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy