GITIN 30 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

GITIN 30 (9 Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. Gitti Kornfeld in memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel. Isi Turkel, as he was known, loved Torah and worked to support it literally with his last ounce of strength. He passed away on 10 Av 5740.


TOSFOS DH "Mi Yahiv Ley"

תוס' ד"ה "מי יהיב ליה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why giving her a large sum of money is upholding his condition.)

אע"ג דלית ליה אין טענת אונס בגיטין והוי גט


Explanation: It is a Get, even though he does not hold of the rule that there is no claim of forced circumstances regarding Gitin.

וא"ת וכי יהב לה נמי תרקבא דדינרי אמאי לא הוי גיטא הא לא איפייסא


Question: If he gives her three Kav of Dinarim, why wouldn't it be a Get? She was not appeased (and the condition is that if she is not appeased within thirty days the Get is valid)!

ואור"י דאי לא פייסנא לה משמע אם לא אטרח לפייסה בדבר גדול ואי יהב לה הרי טרח לפייסה וקיים תנאו אע"פ שלא נתפייסה.


Answer: The Ri says that the condition, "if I do not appease her" means "if I will not try to appease her in a tremendous way." If he gives her this amount of money, he has clearly tried to appease her, and has therefore kept his condition even though she was not appeased.


TOSFOS DH "b'Makirei Lo Katani"

תוס' ד"ה "במכרי לא קתני"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the position of Rav and Shmuel in light of this question on Rav.)

אע"ג דמזכה נמי לא קתני


Implied Question: The Mishnah does not state that the case is where they acquire for them either. (Note: Accordingly, why this a question on Rav's explanation anymore than it is a question on Shmuel?)

מ"מ ניחא ליה לאוקמי במזכה דאיירי בכל כהנים


Answer: It is still better to say that the Mishnah is talking about others acquiring for them, as this can be dealing with all Kohanim (as opposed to exclusive Makirei Kehunah).

ומאן דמוקי לה במכרי משום דמזכה לא קתני אע"ג דמכרי נמי לא קתני משמע ליה מפרישין עליהן סתם בלא שום זיכוי.


The one (Rav) who says that the Mishnah is discussing Makirei Kehunah maintains this because the Mishnah does not say that the case is where others acquired for them. Even though Makirei Kehunah is also not said, the Mishnah implies that one can just separate Terumos for them without actually acquiring for them. (Note: This can only be if the case is dealing with Makirei Kehunah.)


TOSFOS DH "ki'Yichida'ah"

תוס' ד"ה "כיחידאה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Shmuel did not say that the Mishnah is only according to Rebbi Yosi.)

אע"ג דשמואל פסיק בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יב.) כרבי יוסי דעשו את שאינו זוכה כזוכה


Implied Question: Shmuel ruled in Bava Metzia (12a) like Rebbi Yosi that they made one who did not acquire like one who acquired.

מכל מקום מסתבר ליה לאוקמי מתניתין אפילו כרבנן.


Answer: Even so, he thinks that the Mishnah is likely even according to the opinion of the Rabbanan.


TOSFOS DH "u'Posek Eemahen"

תוס' ד"ה "ופוסק עמהן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes a Gemara later to explain what this means.)

כדמפ' דאע"ג דלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי ואין בו משום רבית אפילו פוסק הרבה פחות משער הזול.


Explanation: This is as the Gemara explains later that even though he did not set with them a value, it is as if he did. There is no prohibition of interest involved, even if he sets the market value at a lot less than the cheap price.



תוס' ד"ה "הא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this isn't obvious.)

וא"ת הא נמי פשיטא דבפרק איזהו נשך (שם דף עב:) אמר ר' יהודה שיכול לומר לו תן לי כזה או תן לי מעותי


Question: This is also simple, as the Gemara in Bava Metzia (72b) quotes Rebbi Yehudah as stating that he can say, "Give me this or give me my money."

וי"ל דהתם שאומר לו בשעת הזול אבל הכא אפילו שתק עד שהוקר השער.


Answer: The case there is where he said this to him when the price was cheap. However, in this case it is even if he was quiet until the price became expensive.



תוס' ד"ה "כיון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is different than Rav's case in Bava Metzia.)

והא דאסר רב בפרדיסא באיזהו נשך (שם דף עג.) אע"ג דאית ביה תיוהא


Implied Question: In Bava Metzia (73a), Rav forbade one to buy small grapes even though there is a possibility the grapes will be destroyed. (Note: One would think this should be permitted, as is indeed the opinion of Shmuel (ibid.). Rav forbids this as the seller is actually selling cheap because he needs the money now, and cannot wait for the grapes to mature (similar to Ribis, where a person takes a loan and pays interest). Why isn't the case of our Gemara similar to the case of the orchard, and similarly forbidden?)

הכא התירו משום תקנת כהן.


Answer: They permitted this here to help the Kohen.


TOSFOS DH "Lo Shanu"

תוס' ד"ה "לא שנו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Rabbanan in Bava Metzia can agree with this Gemara.)

אפילו לרבנן דפליגי ארבי שמעון בפ' הזהב (שם דף מד.) ולית להו כל שהכסף בידו ידו על העליונה


Implied Question: The Rabbanan argue on Rebbi Shimon in Bava Metzia (44a), and do not hold that the person who has the money has the upper hand. (Note: Why, then, would the Rabbanan say the Kohen has the upper hand?)

הכא לא גרע מכי לית ליה לא יהיב


Answer#1: This case is not worse than a case where if he does not have he does not have to give.

אי נמי כדפירש בקונטרס דהכא דאין לו למשוך ממנו כלום לא מצי הדר ביה.


Answer#2: Alternatively, as Rashi explains, he here he does not have to take anything away from him, and therefore he cannot renege on the deal.



Tosfos DH "Ika Bei'neihu"

תוס' ד"ה "איכא בינייהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi regarding the explanation of the Gemara's answer.)

אומר ר"י דלא תקינו אלא בחזקת עניי העיר


Opinion#1: The Ri says that they only established that the Ma'aser should be separated for the poor of the city. (Note: Being that there are no poor in the city, he does not separate at all (Tosfos Ha'Rosh).)

ולא כמו שפירש הקונטרס דלתנא קמא גרי אריות הם ולא יפריש בשבילם אלא בשביל עניי ישראל מפריש בכל מקום שהם


Opinion#2: This is unlike the explanation of Rashi who says that according to the Tana Kama they are people who converted out of fear, and therefore he should not separate for them, but rather for any poor Jews wherever they may be.

דא"כ לא נפקא מינה מידי מאי בינייהו.


Implied Question: Otherwise (if Rashi is correct), there is no difference between them.


Tosfos DH "Tanya"

תוס' ד"ה "תניא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that this must be talking about the second part of the Mishnah.)

מפריש עליהם אבל לא ירשו לא מפריש עליהן ואסיפא קאי ואם הלוה בפני ב"ד אין צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשים


Explanation: He can separate for the inheritors. However, if they do not inherit the person he used to separate for he cannot separate for them. This is referring to the second part of the Mishnah, that if he lent him money in front of Beis Din, he does not have to ask permission from the inheritors.

אבל ארישא דקתני מת צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשים לא מצי קאי דכ"ש אם לא ירשו שצריך ליטול רשות יותר שאין עליהן מוטל לפרוע חוב אביהן.


However, Rebbi cannot be referring to the first part of the Mishnah that says that if he died, permission is required from the inheritors. This is because it is certain that if they did not inherit that he would have to ask permission, as they do not have any obligation to pay their father's debt.


Tosfos DH "u'chi'Ma'aseh"

תוס' ד"ה "וכמעשה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the creditor can keep collecting.)

ואע"ג דאמר התם במי שהיה נשוי (כתובות דף צא:) דאי אמרו ליה הני חמשין דמי קטינא סלוקי סלקוהו


Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (91b) states that if they would have said to him that these fifty are the money for the small field, they would have removed him (their creditor).

הכא תקנתא דרבנן היא.


Answer: This is a Rabbinic decree (that the creditor should be able to collect anyway).


Tosfos DH "Heilech"

תוס' ד"ה "הילך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue about when the Levi might have made the grain into Terumas Ma'aser.)

פירש בקונט' לאחר שקיבל המעות עשאו תרומת מעשר


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that after he accepted the money he made it Terumas Ma'aser.

וקשה לר"י דלאחר שמכרו איך יכול לעשותו הא לא מיחסר משיכה שהרי ברשות ישראל קאי


Question: The Ri finds this difficult. After the Levi has already sold it, how can he make it become Terumas Ma'aser? It is not as if the Yisrael who bought it lacked a Kinyan Meshicah, as it is in his possession!

אלא י"ל דשמא עשאו קודם קבלת הדמים קאמר


Explanation#2: Rather, it is possible that he did it before he took the money (unlike Rashi's explanation).

ופריך אטו ברשיעי עסקינן דשקלי דמי ומשוו ליה תרומת מעשר פירוש ומשוו ליה כבר תרומת מעשר מעיקרא.


The Gemara therefore asks, are we dealing with evildoers who take money and make it into Terumas Ma'aser? The Gemara means that they already made it into Terumas Ma'aser (before taking the money).


Tosfos DH "Ma'aser l'Avicha"

תוס' ד"ה "מעשר לאביך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what "take the money" adds to the case, and why we suspect it is Terumas Ma'aser.)

תימה אמאי נקט השתא הילך דמיו


Question#1: This is difficult. Why does it say now "take the money?"

ועוד אמאי חוששין כלל שעשאו אביו תרומת מעשר והא אדרבה חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא דבר שאינו מתוקן מתחת ידו כדאמרי' (פסחים דף ט.) בחבר שמת והניח מגורה מליאה פירות


Question#2: Additionally, why are they worried at all that his father made this into Terumas Ma'aser? On the contrary, a Chaver (person careful about Terumos and Ma'asros) has a status that he never lets anything leave his hand that has not had the proper Terumos and Ma'asros taken, as we state in Pesachim (9a) regarding a Chaver who died and left a drawer full of fruit.

וי"ל בדוחק דקסבר דמסתמא אביו אמר לו אם הוא מתוקן או אינו מתוקן ואם לא נטל דמיו רמי אנפשיה לצורך עצמו ומדכר שאמר לו אביו ואם לא מדכר חשבינן ליה בחזקת מתוקן אבל כשנוטל דמיו לצורך אחרים לא רמי אנפשיה ומדכר.


Answer: We can give a forced answer that he holds that his father would have told him whether or not it was Terumas Ma'aser. If his father did not take the money, his father would make a point of telling him about its status, and he would remember what his father said. If he does not remember, it is considered that it had Terumos and Ma'asros taken off. However, if his father took the value for the purpose of others, his son does not necessarily remember (whether or not his father told him that he made it Terumas Ma'aser, see Tosfos Ha'Rosh).


Tosfos DH "v'Chi Nech'shedu"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי נחשדו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Terumas Ma'aser indeed must be taken when it is all in the same area.)

תימה דתנן במסכת ביכורים (פ"ב מ"ה) תרומת מעשר שוה לביכורים בשני דרכים ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא ושלא מן המוקף


Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah in Bikurim (2:5) states that Terumas Ma'aser is similar to Bikurim in two ways: It is taken from produce that is pure to exempt produce that is impure, and it can be taken without having all of the produce in the same immediate area.

ואמר נמי בירושלמי בפ' ב' דתרומות דכל התורה כולה למידה ומלמדה חוץ מתרומת מעשר שמלמדה ואינה למידה דבתרומת מעשר כתיב (במדבר יח) ממנו מן המוקף ומוקמי' ליה בתרומה גדולה ולא בתרומת מעשר


The Yerushalmi in Terumos (ch. 2) states that the (Pesukim of the) entire Torah teach about themselves and other topics, besides Terumas Ma'aser which teaches about other topics but not about itself. The Pasuk states regarding Terumas Ma'aser "mi'Menu" -- "from it," implying that it must be taken when all of the produce is gathered together in one area. However, this lesson is established to be referring to the regular Terumah, and not Terumas Ma'aser (despite the fact that it is stated by the Pesukim about Terumas Ma'aser).

ובפ' הזהב (ב"מ דף מט.) אמרינן ישראל שאמר לבן לוי כור מעשר יש לך בידי רשאי בן לוי לעשותו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר והכא פריך אתרומת מעשר וכי נחשדו כו'


The Gemara in Bava Metzia (49a) states that if a Yisrael tells a Levi that he is holding a Kur of Ma'aser for him, the Levi can declare that this Kur should become Terumas Ma'aser on other produce/grain that he has in a different place. Yet, the Gemara here asks regarding Terumas Ma'aser, "Are they suspected etc." (Note: It doesn't seem that there is anything wrong with doing so!)

וי"ל מדרבנן אף תרומת מעשר בעי מוקף


Answer: According to Rabbinic law, even Terumas Ma'aser requires that all the grain should be in one area.

והא דקאמר רשאי בן לוי


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia quoted above (49a) says that a Levi can do so. (Note: Why would it say this if it was not proper according to Rabbinic law?)

היינו בשבתות ויו"ט דשרי כדאמרי' בהאשה רבה (יבמות דף צג.)


Answer: The Gemara was referring to Shabbos and Yom Tov when it is permitted (in special circumstances, see (f) below), as is stated in Yevamos (93a).

וקשה דבפ' המפקיד (ב"מ דף לח.) תנן המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו אפילו הן אבודין לא יגע בהן ומפרש רב נחמן בר יצחק בגמרא דחיישינן שמא עשאו תרומת מעשר על מקום אחר ואמאי וכי נחשדו לתרום שלא מן המוקף


Question: The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (38a) states that if someone deposits fruit with his friend, even if they are getting spoiled, he should not touch them. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains in the Gemara that we suspect that perhaps his friend had declared them to be Terumas Ma'aser on fruit in another area. Why should we suspect this? Are people suspected to take off Terumas Ma'aser when everything is not together in one area? (Note: It is Rabbinically prohibited!)

ואומר ר"ת דגבי פקדון חיישינן טפי ובחששא מועטת תולין הדבר להחמיר שלא ליגע בו וחיישינן שמא בשבתות ויו"ט עשאו דשרי שלא מן המוקף כדאמר בהאשה רבה (יבמות דף צג.) אבל בשאר מקומות לא חיישינן דלא שכיחא שיהא לו פירות בביתו ולא יהא לו די לשבת אם לא יעשרו ממקום אחר


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that regarding a deposit we have more reason to suspect that he declared it to be Terumas Ma'aser. Even though it is a small suspicion, it is reason enough for us to be stringent that he should not touch it. We suspect that he might have done so on Shabbos or Yom Tov, when it is permitted to declare Terumas Ma'aser that is not all in one area, as stated in Yevamos (93a). However, in other places we do not suspect this, as it is uncommon that he will have fruit in his house and will not have enough for Shabbos unless he declares Terumas Ma'aser from fruit that is in another location.

וי"מ דדוקא חברים לא נחשדו לתרום שלא מן המוקף דהכא איירי בבן לוי שניתן לו מעשר ואין נותנין אלא לחבר כדאיתא בהזרוע (חולין דף קל:) אין נותנין מתנות לכהן עם הארץ אבל המפקיד כל אדם מפקיד אף שאינן בקיאין בהלכות מוקף


Opinion: Some explain that only Chaverim are not suspected to take off Terumah from produce in another area. However, in our Gemara we are discussing a Levi who was given Ma'aser, and one should normally only give Ma'aser to a Chaver, as stated in Chulin (130b) that Matanos are not given to a Kohen who is an Am ha'Aretz. However, when someone leaves Ma'aser with someone else (as is the case in Bava Metzia 38a), anyone could be leaving the Ma'aser, even if they are not expert in the laws of only taking off from produce in one area.

וא"ת ההיא דביכורים דנטילתה שלא מן המוקף היכי מצי למימר דמדאורייתא איירי הא קתני וצריכה שיעור כתרומה ומדאורייתא לתרומה גדולה אין לה שיעור דחטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי


Question: How can we say that the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:5), which states that Terumas Ma'aser and Bikurim can be taken off from produce that is not in the immediate area, is only discussing the Torah law? Doesn't the Mishnah there state that the amount taken must be the same as the amount of Terumah taken, and according to Torah law there is no amount, as we know that even one grain of wheat exempts an entire silo from Terumah (according to Torah law)?

וי"ל דאין לה שיעור למטה אבל יש לה שיעור למעלה דאין יכול לעשות כל גורנו תרומה דבעינן ראשית ששיריה ניכרים וכי האי גוונא איכא בריש מסכת פאה (פ"א מ"א) גבי אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור.


Answer: (Note: The Mishnah is indeed discussing Torah law, and means the following.) It does not have a minimum amount, but it does have a maximum amount. One cannot make his entire silo into Terumah, as Terumah is called "the first," implying that whatever it was taken from must be clearly recognizable. A similar explanation is given in the beginning of Pei'ah (1:1) regarding things that do not have an amount (see Chagigah 7a where this explanation is quoted in the Bavli).


Tosfos DH "li'Trom"

תוס' ד"ה "לתרום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions Rashi's explanation as to why Terumas Ma'aser must be taken from grain that is all in one area.)

פי' בקונטרס דשמא באותה שעה אינה בעין


Explanation: Rashi explains that perhaps at that time it will not be extant.

ואין נראה דתרומה גדולה מדאורייתא בעי מוקף וא"כ אפילו שתיהן לפניו


Implied Question: This does not seem to be correct. Regular Terumah must be taken off only when everything is in one area according to Torah law. If so, even if both of them are in front of him (he cannot take it off if they are not considered in the same area).

ובתרומת מעשר נמי דלא בעינן מוקף אלא מדרבנן נראה דהיינו משום גזירה אטו תרומה גדולה ובעינן מוקף אפילו שתיהן לפניו כמו בתרומה גדולה וגבי חלה נמי תנן מוקף אפילו שתיהן לפניו.


Terumas Ma'aser, which is only required to be in the same area according to Rabbinic law, seems to be a decree lest one come to think he does not have to do so with regular Terumah. However, even if both piles of grain are in front of him, they must be in the same area, just as this is the law regarding regular Terumah. The taking of Chalah, as well, must be when both are considered in the same area, and it is not sufficient that they are merely in front of him.


Tosfos DH "Kivan"

תוס' ד"ה "כיון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this is understandable in light of the Gemara later.)

וא"ת והא מוקי לה כאבא אלעזר בן גמלא דאמר ניטלת מאומד וא"כ כי לא קייץ נמי ליחוש דלמא תקוניה תקניה בעה"ב מאומד


Question: We later establish that this is according to Aba Elazar ben Gamla, who says that Terumas Ma'aser can be taken using an estimate. If so, even if the exact amount is not known, why don't we suspect that the owner took it off as Terumas Ma'aser using an estimate?

וי"ל דאינו תורם מאומד דבר שאינו שלו שאינו רוצה להפסיד לא ללוי ולא לכהן.


Answer: A person will not take off in an estimated fashion something that is not his, as he does not want to cause a loss to the Kohen or Levi in question.


Tosfos DH "In, Elazar ben Gamla Hee"

תוס' ד"ה "אין אלעזר בן גמלא היא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we should assume that he took off Terumas Ma'aser.)

וא"ת נהי שיש לו רשות לתרום שמא לא חשש לתרום מעשר שעתיד ליתן ללוי והיאך נתיר מספק


Question: Even if he has permission to take off Terumah, perhaps he did not bother to take off Terumah from Ma'aser that he was going to give to the Levi. How can we permit this when we are unsure?

וי"ל דכיון שהרשות בידו ושהה זמן גדול בביתו ומצוה עליה רמיא סתמא דמילתא דתקוניה תקניה.


Answer: Being that he has the ability, it was in his house for a long time, and it is a Mitzvah for him to do it, he probably took it off.