## Gittin Daf 30a

###### Gittin 30a:1
[Gittin 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:1)

כִּי מְשַׁוּוּ בֵּית דִּין שָׁלִיחַ; בְּפָנָיו, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו? הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When the court appoints** a second **agent,** must they do so **in** the **presence of** the first agent, **or** may it be when **not in his presence? He then resolves it:** The second agent may be appointed **either in his presence or not in his presence.** Similarly, **they sent from there,** from Eretz Yisrael, this ruling: The court may appoint another agent **either in the presence** of the first agent **or not in his presence.**


###### Gittin 30a:2
[Gittin 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:2)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲתָא וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״, ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״. אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates another incident, involving **a certain** man **who said** to the agents with whom he entrusted a bill of divorce: **If I do not arrive** from now **until thirty days** have passed, **let this be a bill of divorce. He came** at the end of the thirtieth day, **but he was prevented** from crossing the river **by the** fact that the **ferry** was located on the other side of the river, so he did not cross the river within the designated time. **He said to** the people across the river: **See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived. Shmuel said:** That **is not considered** to be **an arrival,** even though it is clear that he intended to arrive, so the bill of divorce is valid.


###### Gittin 30a:3
[Gittin 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:3)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא [מְ]פַיֵּיסְנָא לַהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲזַל פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִי יְהַב לַהּ תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving **a certain** man **who said to** agents with whom he had deposited a bill of divorce: **If I do not appease** my wife **within thirty days, let this be a bill of divorce. He went** to **appease her, but she was not appeased. Rav Yosef said: Did he give her** a large **vessel [*tarkeva*]** full **of dinars but she was not appeased?** Although his inability to appease her was a result of his lack of financial means, since he did not properly fulfill his condition to appease her, the bill of divorce is valid.


###### Gittin 30a:4
[Gittin 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִידֵּי תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לַהּ?! הָא פַּיְּיסַהּ, וְלָא אִיפַּיַּיסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of the statement, that **Rav Yosef said: Did he need to give her a vessel** full **of dinars** in order to appease her? This is a situation where **he** attempted to **appease her, but she was not appeased.** Therefore, he did fulfill his condition, and the bill of divorce is not effective, as it is not his fault that she was not appeased.


###### Gittin 30a:5
[Gittin 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:5)

הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין, הָא – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef’s statement: **This** second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is **according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond** one’s **control have** legal standing **with regard to bills of divorce.** Therefore, the bill of divorce is not valid, as the husband did all he could to appease her. **This** first version, in which the bill of divorce is valid, is **according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond** one’s **control** have **no** legal standing **with regard to bills of divorce.**


###### Gittin 30a:6
[Gittin 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן; מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ הַלֵּוִי, אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to **one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person,** with the understanding that **he will separate their portion** of the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the *teruma* and tithes separated from the produce, **he may separate** the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money **with the presumption that they are** still **alive, and he need not be concerned** that **perhaps the priest or the Levite died** in the interim, **or** that **the poor person became rich** and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man’s tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate *teruma* and tithes.


###### Gittin 30a:7
[Gittin 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:7)

מֵתוּ – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים; אִם הִלְווֹן בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If in fact **they died,** then **he must obtain permission from the heirs** in order to continue the arrangement. However, **if he lent** money **to** the deceased, and he stipulated **in the presence of the court** that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then **he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.**


###### Gittin 30a:8
[Gittin 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָתוּ לִידֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna assumes that the priest, Levite, and poor person acquire the *teruma* and tithes that the creditor separates from his produce, but they agree at the time of the loan that the tithes and *teruma* will then be acquired by the creditor as payment of their debt. The Gemara asks: **And** can the priest, Levite, and poor person transfer possession of the *terumot* or tithes back to the creditor **even though** the produce **did not come into their possession?**


###### Gittin 30a:9
[Gittin 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:9)

אָמַר רַב: בְּמַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בִּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים. עוּלָּא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עָשׂוּ אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** This is stated **with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites,** i.e., people who have an arrangement with a specific priest or Levite to give him their *teruma* or tithes. The specific priest or Levite therefore has a presumptive status of ownership of the tithes or *teruma* and is considered to have acquired them. **And Shmuel says:** This is stated **with regard to** one who **has** the priest or Levite **acquire** the gifts **through** the act of acquisition of **others,** who acquire the *teruma* and tithes on their behalf. The lender is then able to reclaim the gifts as repayment of the loan. **Ulla said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who says** in other contexts: The Sages, by means of an ordinance, **rendered one who does not acquire like one who acquires.** Here, too, the Sages instituted an ordinance to enable this arrangement.


###### Gittin 30a:10
[Gittin 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:10)

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַב לָא אָמְרִי – בְּמַכָּרֵי לָא קָתָנֵי. כִּשְׁמוּאֵל לָא קָאָמְרִי – בִּמְזַכֶּה לָא קָתָנֵי. כְּעוּלָּא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי – כִּיחִידָאָה לָא מוֹקְמִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why each of the aforementioned Sages disagreed with the others. **All** the other Sages, i.e., Shmuel and Ulla, **do not state** their opinions **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav,** because the mishna **does not teach** explicitly that the *halakha* is stated **with regard to associates** of the priesthood and the Levites. Rav and Ulla **do not state** their opinions **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel** because the mishna **does not teach** that this *halakha* is stated **with regard to** one who **has** the priest or Levite **acquire** the gifts **through** the act of acquisition of **others.** Rav and Shmuel **also do not state** their opinions **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ulla** because **we do not establish** the mishna to be stated **in accordance** with **an individual** opinion, in this case Rabbi Yosei; rather, the assumption is that the ruling of the mishna is written in accordance with the majority opinion.


###### Gittin 30a:11
[Gittin 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 3:1): With regard to **one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person** with the understanding that **he will separate their portion** of the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money, **he may separate** the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money, **with the presumption that they are** still **alive.**


###### Gittin 30a:12
[Gittin 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:12)

וּפוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶן כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל; וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית; וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And he may contract with them according to the low** market **rate,** i.e., he may set a price for the gifts that he will separate in the future based on either their value at the time of the loan, or their value when they will be separated, whichever is lower. **And this is not subject to** the prohibition of **interest,** meaning that if the market rate falls, it will not be considered as though they are repaying in excess of the amount of the loan. **And the Sabbatical** Year **does not cancel** this loan; even after the Sabbatical Year, the lender may continue to collect his debt in this manner.


###### Gittin 30a:13
[Gittin 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:13)

וְאִם בָּא לַחֲזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And if** the lender **seeks to renege** on this agreement, **he may not renege.** If **the owner despaired** of retrieving the loan, as he thought that he would not need to separate any *teruma* or tithes and therefore thought that he would not collect payment for the loan, although it later became clear that he was mistaken, **he may not separate** the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money, **because one may not separate** *teruma* and tithes **on the basis of** one’s loan that one had thought **lost.** Once he despaired of retrieving the loan, the sum of the loan is permanently acquired by the borrowers and the lender may not use the tithes and *teruma* to serve as repayment.


###### Gittin 30a:14
[Gittin 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:14)

אָמַר מָר: פּוֹסֵק עִמָּהֶם כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק – כְּמִי שֶׁפָּסַק דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the rulings of the *baraita*: **The Master said: He may contract with them according to the low** market **rate.** The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **This teaches us** that **even though he did not contract** explicitly that he would use the lower market price, he is **considered like one who did** so **contract** and may do so anyway.


###### Gittin 30a:15
[Gittin 30a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:15)

וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית – מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לֵית לֵיהּ – לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also teaches: **And this is not subject to** the prohibition of **interest.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers: **Since, when** the priest or Levite **has no** *teruma* or tithes that he received from the creditor, e.g., when the grain in the field did not sprout due to a drought, **he does not give** anything to the creditor in repayment of the loan, this indicates that it is not a true loan. Therefore, **when** the priest or Levite **has** *teruma* and tithes, this **also is not subject to** the prohibition of **interest.**


###### Gittin 30a:16
[Gittin 30a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:16)

וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ – דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יִגּוֹשׂ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also teaches: **And the Sabbatical** Year **does not cancel** this loan. The Gemara explains: The reason **is that concerning this** loan, **one cannot read** the verse stated with regard to the cancellation of debts by the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: **“He shall not exact** it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since in any event one cannot claim repayment of this type of loan, it is not addressed by the verse in question.


###### Gittin 30a:17
[Gittin 30a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:17)

וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר, אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּכֹהֵן; אֲבָל כֹּהֵן בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – חוֹזֵר. דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת – יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also teaches: **And if** the lender **seeks to renege** on this agreement, **he cannot renege. Rav Pappa said: They taught** this **only** with regard to **a homeowner,** i.e., an owner of produce, who wishes to renege on his agreement **with a priest.** In that situation, the homeowner cannot demand repayment of the loan with money. **However,** with regard to **a priest** who wishes to renege on his agreement **with a homeowner, if he seeks to renege, he may renege.** What is the reason for this? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 44a): In any transaction, if the purchaser **gave** the seller **money but did not** yet **pull** the **produce,** then the seller **can renege** on the sale. Here, since the priest received money and the homeowner did not yet formally acquire the produce, the priest can renege on the agreement.


###### Gittin 30a:18
[Gittin 30a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:18)

נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲקוּן; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲקַנְתָּא מִילְּתָא הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also teaches: If **the owner despaired** of retrieving the loan, **he may not separate** the *teruma* and tithes from his produce **on the basis of that** money **because one may not separate** *teruma* and tithes **on the basis of** a loan that he had thought **lost.** The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious,** as he is no longer owed the money? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the seeds **produced stalks** and became dried out. **Lest you say** that **growth of stalks is** a significant **matter,** as there is a chance that the produce will still grow and so he does not fully despair, the *baraita* **teaches us** that even in such a situation, since the produce is very unlikely to recover, he does despair of retrieving the loan.


###### Gittin 30a:19
[Gittin 30a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:19)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵתוּ – מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְאֶת הֶעָנִי בְּבֵית דִּין, וָמֵת – מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי אַחַי אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶזְקַת עֲנִיֵּי עוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 3:1) that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** With regard to **one who lends money to a priest or to a Levite in court and they died** before repaying the loan, **he separates** *teruma* and tithes **on the basis of that** money **with the presumption** that there is one from **that tribe** who inherited from them, and he need not confirm that the deceased priest or Levite has immediate heirs. He then continues the arrangement based on the transfer of the debt to the heirs. **And** if he lent money **to a poor person in court, and** the poor person **died** before repaying the loan, the creditor **separates** tithes **on the basis of that** money **with the presumption** that **the poor of the Jewish people** would agree to continue the arrangement. **Rabbi Aḥai says:** It is **with the presumption** that **the poor of the world** would agree to continue the arrangement.


###### Gittin 30a:20
[Gittin 30a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/30a:20)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai? Rabbi Aḥai too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.