Gittin 30bגיטין ל׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 30b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
30bל׳ ב

איכא בינייהו עניי כותיים

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.

העשיר העני אין מפריש עליו וזכה הלה במה שבידו

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.

ורבנן מאי שנא למיתה דעבוד תקנתא ומאי שנא לעשירות דלא עבוד תקנתא מיתה שכיחא עשירות לא שכיחא אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי חברך מית אשר איתעשר לא תאשר:

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.

מת צריך ליטול רשות וכו': תניא רבי אומר יורשין שירשו ומי איכא יורשין דלא ירתי אלא אמר ר' יוחנן שירשו קרקע ולא שירשו כספים

§ 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.

א"ר יונתן הניח מלא מחט גובה מלא מחט מלא קרדום גובה מלא קרדום ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו הניח מלא מחט גובה מלא קרדום

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.

וכמעשה דקטינא דאביי:

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.

ת"ר ישראל שאמר ללוי מעשר יש לך בידי אין חוששין לתרומת מעשר שבו כור מעשר יש לך בידי חוששין לתרומת מעשר שבו

§ 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.

מאי קאמר אמר אביי ה"ק ישראל שאמר ללוי מעשר יש לך בידי והילך דמיו אין חוששין שמא עשאו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר כור מעשר יש לך בידי והילך דמיו חוששין שמא עשאו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר

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.

אטו ברשיעי עסקינן דשקלי דמי ומשוו ליה תרומת מעשר

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?

אלא אמר רב משרשיא בריה דרב אידי הכי קאמר ישראל שאמר לבן לוי מעשר לאביך בידי הילך דמיו אין חוששין שמא עשאו אביו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר כור מעשר לאביך בידי והילך דמיו חוששין שמא עשאו אביו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר

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.

וכי נחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף

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?

אלא אמר רב אשי ה"ק בן ישראל שאמר ללוי כך אמר לי אבא מעשר לך בידי או מעשר לאביך בידי חוששין לתרומת מעשר שבו כיון דלא קיץ לא הוה מתקן ליה בעל הבית כור מעשר לך בידי או כור מעשר לאביך בידי אין חוששין לתרומת מעשר שבו כיון דקיץ תקוני תקניה בעל הבית

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.

וכי יש לו רשות לבעה"ב לתרום תרומת מעשר אין אבא אלעזר בן גמלא היא דתניא אבא אלעזר בן גמלא אומר (במדבר יח, כז) ונחשב לכם תרומתכם

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).