GITIN 37 - Dedicated by HaGaon HaRav Yosef and Ruthie Pearlman, Ohavei Torah from London, England. May Hashem bless them with good health and provide them with all their needs that they may enjoy many years of Nachas and joy from their wonderful family.


TOSFOS DH "Ela Al ha'Karka"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא על הקרקע"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Chazal instituted a Pruzbul on (at least) a tiny piece of land.)

משום דמלתא דשכיחא היא שמלוה למי שיש לו קרקע לפי שאין יכול לכלותו ועומדת בפניו


Explanation: This is because it is a common thing that a person lends to someone who owns land. He cannot use up his land, and it is standing before him (to collect in case he defaults on the loan).

ואע"ג דעציץ נקוב יכול לכלותו


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that one can use up a potted plant that has a hole. (Note: Why, then, did Chazal allow a Pruzbul to be written based on this potted plant?)

לא פלוג רבנן במקרקעי


Answer: This is because the Rabbanan did not differentiate between different types of land.

והא דכתבינן אקרקע כל שהוא פי' בקונטרס משום דראוי לגבות בו כל החוב כמעשה דקטינא דאביי


Opinion#1: Even a small amount of land can be used to write a Pruzbul. Rashi explains that this is because one can collect the entire debt from such a piece of land, as was done in the incident of the small field discussed by Abaye (see Kesuvos 91b).

ורבינו שמואל פי' משום דקרקע כל שהוא שוה כל החוב דאין אונאה לקרקעות


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Shmuel explains because a tiny piece of land is still (possibly) worth all of the debt, as there is no law of Ona'ah when it comes to land.

וקשה דהא אמרי' (כתובות דף ק:) דביטול מקח יש להם עד פלגא.


Question: This is difficult, as we say in Kesvuos (100b) that we cancel the transaction if the value of the sale was more than double its actual worth.


TOSFOS DH "mid'Rebbi Nasan"

תוס' ד"ה "מדרבי נתן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that we rule like Rebbi Nasan.)

הלכה כר' נתן דרבא בפרק כל שעה (פסחים לא.) לא מתוקמא מלתיה אלא כרבי נתן גבי פלוגתא דלמפרע הוא גובה דאביי ורבא וקיימא לן כרבא בר מיע"ל קג"ם


Opinion: The law follows Rebbi Nasan. This is evident from Rava's statement in Pesachim (31a), as his opinion that a creditor only collects in the future (explained there) can only be upheld according to Rebbi Nasan. We know that in arguments between Abaye and Rava, the law follows Rava besides in the six cases of YA'aL K'GaM (each of the capitalized letter stands for a case). (Note: Being that this is not one of those cases, and the law therefore follows Rava, the law also must follow Rebbi Nasan.)

ור"ת בתחלה ר"ל דאין הלכה כרבי נתן ושוב חזר בו ואין להאריך כאן.


Rabeinu Tam originally held that the law does not follow Rebbi Nasan, but he then retracted his opinion. There is no need to give a lengthy explanation here (on this topic).



תוס' ד"ה "שטר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between our case and cases where people could have collected from property that are still taken away by Shemitah.)

הא דאמרינן לעיל בפ"ב (דף יח.) דאונס קנס ופיתוי שזקפן במלוה משמטין ומפרש דהיינו משעת העמדה בדין אע"ג דמשעמד בדין גבי ממשעבדי כדמוכח בכמה דוכתי וכן כתובה משתפגום ותזקוף משמטת אע"ג דגבי ממשעבדי


Implied Question: It says earlier (18a) that money owed due to rape, a fine, or seduction that was made into a loan, is taken away by Shemitah. The Gemara explains that this is from the time that the person was taken to Beis Din. This is despite the fact that when he was in Beis Din the money could have been collected from his property with a lien, as is apparent in many places. Similarly, when a woman demand her Kesuvah and establishes it as a loan, the loan is taken away by Shemitah even though she could have technically collected the loan from property with a lien. (Note: Why is a case of a loan document with Achrayus different than these cases?)

מ"מ אלים טפי כשמפורש שיעבוד בשטר.


Answer: It is indeed stronger, as the lien on the property is explicit in the document.


TOSFOS DH "d'Tafis"

תוס' ד"ה "דתפיס"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source for this law.)

פי' בתורת משכון ודרשי' בספרי ולא של אחיך בידך.


Explanation: He seized it as collateral. The Sifri derives, "And not that of your brother in your hand." (Note: This is the source that loans with collateral are not taken away by Shemitah.)


TOSFOS DH "Ela mei'Atah"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא מעתה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

אין לפרש דפריך מהלוהו שלא על חצרו מדלא נקט הלוהו ויש לו משכון בידו


Explanation: One should not explain that the question is from a case where he lent him money, but the loan was not connected to the yard. This is clear from the fact that it does not say that he gave him a loan and he has collateral in his hand.

אלא פריך הלוהו על חצירו ודר בחצירו דאפ"ה משמט כדמוכח בפ' איזהו נשך (ב"מ דף סז:) דאמרינן האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי שביעית משמטת.


Rather, the question is from a case where he lent him money based on his yard and he lives in his yard. Even so, Shemitah takes away the loan, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (67b), where the Gemara says that a loan with collateral, in a place where a loan can be taken away at any time (but during the interim the lender eats the fruit of the field), is indeed taken away by Shemitah.


TOSFOS DH "Shani Mashkon"

תוס' ד"ה "שאני משכון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains whether or not there is a difference if the collateral was taken at the time of the loan,)

ואם תאמר והא דר' יצחק שלא בשעת הלואתו כדאמרינן בהאומנים (ב"מ פב.) ובשלהי פרק הדיינין (שבועות מד.) והכא המלוה על המשכון קתני דמשמע בשעת הלואתו כדאמרי' התם והא אידי ואידי הלוהו על המשכון קתני ואין סברא לחלק בין המלוה להלוהו


Question#1: Rebbi Yitzchak's law is only when the collateral is not taken at the time when the loan was given, as stated in Bava Metzia (82a) and Shevuos (44a). Here, it says a case of someone who lends based on collateral, implying that the collateral was given at the time of the loan. This is even implied in the Gemara there (in Bava Metzia), as it asks, "Both are stating a case of lending based on collateral!" There is no reason to differentiate between the terms "one who lends" and "one he lends to."

ועוד בפרק הזהב (ב"מ דף מח:) ובפ' הדיינין (שבועות מד:) משמע נמי דאפי' בשעת הלואתו אינו משמט גבי מלוה על המשכון ואינו שוה אלא פלגא דקאמר רשב"ג דאינו משמט פי' מה שכנגד המשכון ורבי יהודה הנשיא סבר דמשמט משום דלא תפיס ליה אלא לזכרון דברים בעלמא


Question#2: Additionally, in Bava Metzia (48b) and Shevuos (44b) the implication is that even (collateral given) during his lending would prevent the loan from being taken away. Regarding a loan based on collateral which is only worth half of the loan, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the loan is not taken away. This means that the amount of the loan equal to the value of the collateral is not taken away. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi holds that the loan is taken away, as he only took the collateral to remind the borrower about the loan.

והיינו ע"כ במשכון בשעת הלוואתו דשלא בשעת הלוואתו מאי דמשכן שקיל לגוביינא ואפילו הכי אם היה שוה המשכון כנגד ההלואה אינו משמט


This is clearly regarding collateral taken during the loan. If it would not be during the loan, than what he would take as collateral would clearly be for the purpose of collection. Even so, if the value of the collateral would equal the loan, the loan would not be taken away.

וי"ל דמסתבר ליה להש"ס מאחר דקני ליה מדרבי יצחק שלא בשעת הלוואתו אלים נמי שיעבודיה בשעת הלואה דלא משמט דקרינן ביה ולא של אחיך בידך


Answer: It is logical to the Gemara that since a person acquires collateral that is taken at a time other than the loan, the strength of the lien on collateral taken at the time of the loan similarly means that the loan is not taken away. Here, too, we say the Pasuk, "And not that of your brother in your hands," applies.

וכן צריך לפרש בפרק כל שעה (פסחים לא:) דמייתי דר' יצחק גבי ישראל שהלוה לעובד כוכבים על חמצו דאלים שיעבודיה אפילו בשעת הלוואתו דמיקרי שלך לעבור בבל יראה הואיל שלא בשעת הלוואה קני לגמרי


This is also how we must explain the Gemara in Pesachim (31b). The Gemara there quotes Rebbi Yitzchak regarding a Jew who lent money to a Nochri based on the Nochri's Chametz (as collateral). The lien on the Chametz is strong enough, even when the collateral was taken at the time of the loan, to make the Jew transgress the prohibition of Bal Yeira'eh (not to see Chametz in your possession on Pesach). This is because if he would have taken it at a time other than the time of the loan, he would acquire it totally. (Note: Similarly, if it is at the time of the loan, it is strong enough for him to transgress Bal Yeira'eh.)

דאפילו מקבל פקדון מעובדי כוכבים אם מקבל עליה אחריות מחייב עליה בבל יראה


Even someone who takes an item to watch from a Nochri transgress Bal Yeira'eh if he accepts responsibility for the item.

ועובד כוכבים שהלוה לישראל על חמצו אי הוה קני עובד כוכבים מישראל לא מחייב ישראל אפי' משכנו בשעת הלוואה משום דאלים שיעבודיה דלא חשיב מצוי ביד ישראל דדרשינן לא ימצא מי שמצוי בידו למעוטי ייחד לו בית אפי' קיבל עליו אחריות כדאמרינן בפ"ק דפסחים (דף ו.)


A Nochri who lent money to a Jew based on the Jew's Chametz as collateral would acquire the Chametz, and in that way the Jew would not be liable (for Bal Yeira'eh) even if the collateral was taken at the time of the loan, assuming the Nochri actually acquires it. (Note: This is discussed in Pesachim (31b).) This is because the lien is strong enough that the Chametz is not considered found in the hand of the Jew. This is as we derive from the Pasuk, "It should not be found," meaning that one only transgresses this prohibition if the Chametz is accessible to him. This excludes if the Jew set aside a house for the Nochri's Chametz, even if the Jew took responsibility for it, as stated in Pesachim (6a). (Note: The Maharsha explains Tosfos' train of thought. In Pesachim (6a), the Nochri's Chametz does not present a problem of Bal Yeira'eh as the Jew designated a house for the Nochri as his place to keep his Chametz. Certainly, then, if the Nochri in his house has the Jew's Chametz as collateral, the Jew does not transgress Bal Yeira'eh.)

ומיהו בפ"ק דקידושין (דף ח:) גבי קדשה במשכון אחרים דמקודשת ומייתי מדר' יצחק צריך לומר דדוקא במשכנו שלא בשעת הלוואתו מקודשת


Observation: However, in Kidushin (8b) the Gemara says that someone who is Mekadesh a woman with the collateral given to him by others has effected a valid Kidushin. The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yitzchak (to prove its point, as he says that a creditor acquires collateral). The Gemara there must be talking about collateral that was taken at a time other than the time of the loan.

דבפרק האומנין (ב"מ פב.) משמע דלא מהני דר' יצחק להתחייב באונסין ולא חשיב אלא כשומר שכר אלמא לא חשיב כשלו לגמרי א"כ מאיזה טעם נחשב כשומר שכר אם לא משום דנהנה דקני ליה לקנות בו את האשה וקרקעות או בחליפין וא"כ בשעת הלוואתו אינו יכול לקדש בו את האשה.


In Bava Metzia (82a), the Gemara implies that Rebbi Yitzchak's law would not mean that the creditor is liable for the loss of the collateral due to forced circumstances. He is only considered a person watching for pay (i.e. he is holding it to ensure he gets back the money he lent) who in not liable in such a case. This indicates that it is not totally his (as otherwise he would also be liable for forced circumstances). If so, why should he be considered as watching for pay, if not for the fact that he benefits from the fact that he can acquire a woman or land with this object or effect a Kinyan Chalifin? It therefore seems that collateral taken during a loan cannot be used to be Mekadesh a woman. (Note: The Pnei Yehoshua quotes the Shach as explaining that collateral taken during a loan does not make someone a person watching for pay, as it is looked upon as if the lender is giving benefit to the borrower. Without the collateral, the loan would not occur. However, when collateral is taken after the loan is already done, it is clear that this is to the detriment of the borrower and the benefit of the lender. In such a case, the benefit of the lender is that he can be Mekadesh a woman etc.)



TOSFOS DH "Lo Shavik"

תוס' ד"ה "לא שביק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he is believed without taking an oath.)

אומר ר"ת דמהאי טעמא נאמן אפי' בלא שבועה.


Explanation: Rabeinu Tam says that for this reason he is believed even without having to take an oath.


TOSFOS DH "l'Olam"

תוס' ד"ה "לעולם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the Gemara could have given an alternate reason.)

לרבו שני לא דהא לשום בן חורין פרקיה


Explanation: He should not go to his second master as he was redeemed in order to be free. (Note: This text is in our Gemara.)

ה"ה דמצי למימר לרבו שני לא דהא לפני יאוש הוא.


It could also have said that he should not go to his second master as it was still before Yiush.



תוס' ד"ה "דילמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the fact that people might not redeem him is not enough of a reason to let the second person redeem him as his slave.)

וא"ת מהאי טעמא כשפדאו לשום עבד ישתעבד לרבו שני


Question: When he is redeemed to be a slave, why doesn't he have to be a slave for the second master for this very reason?

וי"ל דמטעם זה אין ראוי לגזול לזה את עבדו וליתנו לחבירו ולא שייך האי טעמא אלא כשפודהו לשם מצוה לשם בן חורין.


Answer: This is not good enough reason to steal a slave from someone and give him to someone else. This reason only applies when he redeems him for the Mitzvah of turning him free.


TOSFOS DH "Bein Kach"

תוס' ד"ה "בין כך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what this means.)

פירש בקונטרס לרבו ראשון וכן מגיה ר"ת


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is referring to the first master, and Rabeinu Tam has this in his version of the text.

דאי כשפדאו לשם עבד ישתעבד לשני יפיל עצמו לגייסו' כדי שירויח לענין מציאה ומתנה דלא קני ליה שני אלא למעשה ידיו ופעמים נמי שהוא שונא לרבו ראשון מתמול שלשום ומפקיע עצמו ממנו


If when he redeemed him to be a slave we would say that he should be a slave for his second master, a slave would throw himself at the soldiers (who would take him and sell him as a slave) in order to gain the fact that any lost objects or presents would now be his. The second master only acquires him for work, not for these things. Additionally, there are times when he simply hates his first master for a long time, and would therefore decide to take himself away from his servitude (in this manner, if we would say that he goes to the second master).

ומיהו נוכל לומר דלא פליג ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אתנא קמא אלא בפדאו לשום בן חורין דמשום דבר מועט לא יפיל עצמו לגייסות.


Opinion#2: However, we can say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only argues on the Tana Kama in a case where he redeemed him in order to set him free. This is because he would not throw himself at the soldiers for a small gain. (Note: See Tosfos Ha'Rosh at length for different opinions regarding the meaning of this phrase (DH) in our Gemara.)


TOSFOS DH "Ee Lifnei"

תוס' ד"ה "אי לפני"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos further clarifies Rava's doubt.)

אע"פ שמסתפק ר' שמעון בן גמליאל בדברי רבנן


Implied Question: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is unsure of the position of the Rabbanan. (Note: If so, why not say they argue before Yiush?)

מ"מ לא מסתבר ליה לרבא כלל לומר דפליג לפני יאוש.


Answer: Rava does not think it is logical to say that they argue before Yiush. (Note: The Maharsha explains that Rava does not think it is logical that the Rabbanan would argue on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's position that just as it is a Mitzvah to redeem free people, it is a Mitzvah to redeem servants.)