דררא¹ דממונא—A monetary interest

OVERVIEW The גמרא differentiated between the case of ארבא, where ר"נ ruled כל דאלים גבר, and the case of המחליף פרה בחמור where the משנה rules יחלוקו Regarding המחליף פרה בחמור there is a דררא דממונא (for each party); however by ארבא, it either belongs to one or to the other. תוספות clarifies the distinction.²

פירוש דדל טענתייהו מהכא יש ספק לבית דין דהי מינייהו הוה הולד – The explanation of**** דררא דממונא is that even if we remove the claims of the litigants from the discussion (the litigants would not know what occurred), nevertheless there is a doubt by בי"ד to whom the calf belongs to; depending – אם נולד קודם שמכר או אחר שמכר – Whether the calf was born before the trade (it belongs then to the original בעל הפרה), or if it was born after the trade (it then belongs to the new בעל הפרה) – תוספות offers a similar case of דררא דממונא: וכן בשור שנגח את הפרה ונמצא עוברה בצדה³ (בבא קמא דף מו,א) – And similarly in the case where an ox gored a cow and a dead fetus was found beside the cow, where סומכוס also rules יחלוקו;⁴ in that case as well – בלא טענתם מסופקים בית דין איך היה מעשה אם קודם שנגחה ילדה או לאחר שנגחה – Without the claims of litigants as to when the ולד aborted, there is this doubt by בי"ד, how the story happened; if the cow aborted before the goring, or after (and as result of) the goring. תוספות offers another case of דררא דממונא: וכן בשור רודף אחר שור אחר והוזק (שם לה,א) – And similarly in the case of an ox chasing another ox and the chased ox was wounded but we did not see the chasing ox goring the chased ox – יש להסתפק אם בשורו הוזק או אי בסלע לקה – There is also the doubt, whether he was wounded by the chasing ox, or he tripped on a stone and was wounded. וכן בכל מקום דפליגי רבנן וסומכוס – And similarly wherever the רבנן and סומכוס dispute whether we say המע"ה (the רבנן) or יחלוקו (the view of סומכוס), it is always a case of דררא דממונא⁵ –

However here by ארבא where each one claims, ‘it belonged to my fathers’, where the doubt arises only because of their claims, everyone (סומכוס and the רבנן) agrees that we rule כדא"ג.

SUMMARY דררא דממונא means דבלא טענותיהם יש ספק לבי"ד (and the מחלוקת between סומכוס ורבנן is [only] by a דררא דממונא.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות (that דררא דממונא means דבלא טענותיהם יש ספק לבי"ד), why does the גמרא repeat itself and say, להאי אית ליה דררא דממונא ולההוא אית ליה דררא דממונא, when it should have said התם יש דררא דממונא?!⁶ Similarly why does the גמרא conclude (regarding ארבא), הכא אי דמר לא דמר ואי דמר לא דמר;⁷ when the גמרא should have concluded הכא ליכא דררא דממונא?!

footnotes: ¹ דררא may mean a sort of connection or entanglement with the money. ² Seemingly by מחליף פרה בחמור it is also a case of אי דמר לאו דמר וכו'. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See previous תוס' (לה,א) ד"ה ומאי footnote # 15. ⁴ The חכמים disagree and maintain המע"ה. See previous תוס' ד"ה ומאי. ⁵ In the three case cited by תוס' (which are המחליף וכו', שור שנגח וכו' and שור שהי' רודף), whoever hears the facts to which all agree to (that there was an exchange and the calf was born either before or after; there was a goring and the abortion took place either before or after; an ox was chasing an ox, and the chased ox was hurt either by the ox or by a stone), it is evident that each party has a rightful claim (a דררא דממונא), because the facts bear it out. Therefore סומכוס maintains יחלוקו for it is as if בי"ד is telling each party, you have a rightful claim. However, by ארבא, if the litigants were not here, there would be no issue (to compel בי"ד to get involved) at all. Therefore we cannot rule יחלוקו (since the facts do not accord each litigant a rightful claim), but rather we rule כדא"ג. According to the חכמים (who maintain המע"ה even if there is a דררא דממונא) the difference is that by ארבא there is no מוחזק and no מוציא therefore we rule כדא"ג (but not יחלוקו, since there is no דררא דממונא). ⁶ See רשב"ם לה,א ד"ה התם, who explains דררא דממונא different from תוס', and according to his פשט it is justified why the גמרא states דררא דממונא למר ודררא דממונא למר. ⁷ This can be misleading; see footnote # 1.

אין מוציאים אותה מידו—We do not remove it from his possession

OVERVIEW The נהרדעי ruled in the case of זה אומר של אבותי וכו' (regarding which ר"נ ruled כדא"ג), that if a third party took possession of the property, בי"ד does not remove him from this property (even if he makes no claim¹). תוספות expands this ruling.

And this ruling of אין מוציאין אותה מידו is effective even if they wrote a הרשאה to each other. The reason the הרשאה is ineffective; since they are רשעים, we do not assist them.

SUMMARY The rule of אין מוציאין אותה מידו is in effect even if they wrote a הרשאה to each other.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that אין נזקקים להם since *they *****are רשעים.⁵ Seemingly only of them is [certainly] a רשע; there is no reason to assume that they are both רשעים; why therefore does תוספות rule that אין נזקקים להם even if כתבו הרשאה זה לזה?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה אם and ד"ה אין. ² A הרשאה is a power of attorney. In this case, each of the initial litigants (after they realized that a third party took possession) gave the other litigant the power to claim on his behalf the disputed property. Seemingly once these two הרשאות were executed, each one of them is seemingly the rightful owner; for he is claiming this property on his own behalf and on behalf of the other litigant who granted him the power of attorney to litigate on his behalf. The third usurping party seemingly has no rights at all since he is not making any claim (see ‘Overview’ and footnote # 1). Nevertheless, בי"ד will not remove the third party from the property, as תוס' continues to explain. ³ It is apparent from תוספות that he disagrees with the רשב"ם ד"ה אין who states דשמא גם לב' הראשונים אין להם חלק בה, for then it is obvious that a הרשאה is ineffective (since it may not belong to either of them). ⁴ One of the two initial litigants is certainly a רשע; for the property belongs to only one of them. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 4. ⁶ See בל"י אות רמו.

דתני רבי חייא גזלן של רבים לא שמיה גזלן—For ר"ח taught; a robber of many is not called a robber.

OVERVIEW The נהרדעי (in support of their view that in the case of ארבא if בא אחד מן השוק והחזיק בה, the rule is that אין מוציאין אותה מידו) cited a ברייתא taught by ר"ח, that one who steals from many is not considered a thief. רב אשי interprets this ברייתא to mean that (he is a thief, however) he cannot repay what he stole. תוספות clarifies what the נהרדעי and רב אשי mean.

שאין מוציאין מידו – The meaning of גזלן של רבים לא שמיה גזלן is that we do not remove the stolen item from his possession (but not that it is not considered stealing) – ומיירי בזה אומר של אבותי – And this ברייתא is discussing a case where each one says, ‘it is my father’s’; thus supporting the view of נהרדעי that by זה אומר של אבותי and a third party took it away, the ruling is אין מוציאין אותו מידו, just like the ruling of this ברייתא – ולא בגזל מחמשה בני אדם¹ דהתם אמאי אין מוציאין² – But the ברייתא is not discussing a case where he stole from [one of] five people [and he does not remember from whom he stole], for in that situation, why should we not remove the item from him (and award it to the five people; since it certainly belonged to one of them). תוספות concluded the view of נהרדעי – תוספות continues with the view of רב אשי: ורב אשי פליג אנהרדעי וסבר דרבי חייא לא להקל בא אלא להחמיר – And רב אשי argues with the נהרדעי (that by ארבא we are מוציאין מידו [and rule כדא"ג, among the two original litigants]), and ר"א maintains that ר"ח did not intend to be lenient on the גזלן, but rather to be more severe with the גזלן, and the meaning of לאו שמיה גזלן is – דלא סגי בהשבה אחת כמו לשאר גזלן עד שישלם גזלה לכל אחד ואחד – That it is not sufficient by making one reparation, like it is by other גזלנים (where they are required to repay [only] the amount they stole, however here it is insufficient that he merely return the item, unless he returns the גזילה to each one – כרבי עקיבא בהגוזל עצים (בבא קמא דף קג,ב) ומיירי בגזל מחמשה – Like ר"ע ruled in פרק הגוזל עצים; ³and ר"ח is discussing a case where he stole from [one of] five people. In summation; the נהרדעי maintain that (in the case of זה אומר של אבותי) if בא אחד מן השוק והחזיק בה the rule is אין מוציאין אותה מידו; and it is based on ר"ח who states גזלן של רבים לא שמיה גזלן, meaning that אין מוציאין אותה מידו; and it refers to this case (of זה אומר של אבותי). However רב אשי maintains that in the case of זה אומר של אבותי, the rule is מוציאין אותו מידו, and the ruling of ר"ח that לא שמיה גזלן is referring to גזל מחמשה and לא שמיה גזלן means that he must return the גזילה to each one individually (five full payments). The נהרדעי agree that by גזל מחמשה that מוציאין אותו מידו.⁴ תוספות cites the פי' הרשב"ם ובקונטרס פירש דמיירי בחנוני שמכר במדה שאינה ישרה דאינו יודע למי גזל – And the רשב"ם explained⁵ that ר"ח was discussing a storekeeper who sold with an improper measure, so he does not know from who he stole – ולכך לא ניתן להשבון⁶ – And therefore (since he does not know from whom he stole), it is impossible to return the גזילה to the rightful owner. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with פי' הרשב"ם: ואף על פי שיכול לעשות בו צרכי צבור כדאמרינן בפרק אין צדין⁷ (ביצה דף כט,א) – And even though he can use the stolen money for public works, as the גמרא states in פרק אין צדין, (so why is he not like a ‘regular’ גזלן)? תוספות replies:

This solution of using it for צרכי צבור is not a satisfying return to those from whom he stole.

SUMMARY ר"ח can be referring either to זה אומר של אבותי (the view of נהרדעי) where it need not be returned, or to גזל מחמשה (the view of רב אשי), where he pays all five. Doing צרכי צבור with stolen money is (not) considered a השבה (מעלייתא).

THINKING IT OVER

1. What does רב אשי rule in our case where ובא אחד מן השוק והחזיק בה (according to תוספות and/or the רשב"ם)?
2. Why do תוספות and the רשב"ם respectively disagree with each other concerning the ruling of ר"ח (according to רב אשי) that גזל מן הרבים לא שמיה גזלן?⁹
3. Does the statement גזל מן הרבים לא שמיה גזלן, lends itself more to be interpreted according to נהרדעי or רב אשי (either according to תוספות or the רשב"ם)?

footnotes: ¹ Each of the five claims that he was the victim and the money is owed to him. ² In the case of ארבא, where we are not certain that it belongs to either of the litigants (and in fact [one of them] is certainly a רשע), therefore we are אין מוציאין מידו; however here where we are certain that it belonged to one of them, we should have the גזלן return it [and have the five divide it (amongst those who claim it is theirs) see later footnote # 4]. See נח"מ for an alternate explanation. ³ The ברייתא cited there states; ר"ע אומר לא זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה עד שישלם גזילה לכל אחד [ואחד]. ⁴ However, the נהרדעי need not maintain that he must pay לכאו"א, but rather they can either agree with ר' טרפון who rules מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק, or like ר"ע; however רב אשי who maintains that ר"ח (when he says לא שמיה גזלן) is referring to גזל מחמשה, must interpret it according to ר"ע because according to ר"ט he is like any other גזלן. ⁵ ד"ה ומאי (at the very end). From our רשב"ם it appears that ר"ח may (also) be discussing זה אומר של אבותי, and לא שמיה גזלן means that he cannot make a השבה מעלייה (see מהרש"א). ⁶ According to the רשב"ם the meaning of לאו שמיה גזלן is that it cannot be returned at all (unlike a ‘regular’ גזלן who can make good); according to תוספות the phrase לא שמיה גזלן means he must return many-fold (unlike a regular גזלן, who makes a single payment). ⁷ The גמרא there cites a ברייתא which states, גזל ואינו יודע למי גזל יעשה בהם צרכי רבים. We assume that those who were robbed will benefit from these צרכי רבים. Seemingly here too the חנוני can make amends by using the stolen money for צרכי רבים. ⁸ We can never be certain that the loss was actually paid up (in full). ⁹ See מהרש"א.

ואי דלי ליה צנא דפירי לאלתר הויא חזקה—And if he loaded upon him a basket of fruit it is a חזקה immediately

OVERVIEW ר' אבא ruled if there are witnesses who saw the מערער loading a basket of fruit, from this field, on the מחזיק, it is a חזקה immediately (there is no need to wait three years).¹ רב זביד ruled that if, however, the מערער claims, ‘I merely sold him temporary rights to the פירות’, it is not a חזקה לאלתר for the land.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולהימניה במיגו דאי בעי אמר לפירות הורדתיו² – And if you will say; in the case where the מערער denies selling anything to the מוחזק (including פירות), let us believe the מערער**** (that he should [at least] retain the field) with a מיגו, for he could have claimed, I let him into my field (only) for פירות, but I did not sell him the field.**** תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהוי מיגו במקום עדים – And one can say that this claim (that he never sold the מוחזק anything), which is supported by a מיגו, contradicts עדים – דאנן סהדי כיון דדלי ליה צנא דפירי מודה שהיו הפירות שלו³ – For we (the בי"ד) testify that since he loaded upon him a צנא דפירי this indicates that the מערער admits that the פירות belong to the מוחזק. תוספות offers another answer: ועוד דאינו רוצה לטעון לפירות הורדתיו אלא תובע הקרקע והפירות:⁴ And in addition, the מערער has no מיגו of לפירות הורדתיו, since he does not wish to claim לפירות הורדתיו, for then he forfeits the פירות, but rather he is claiming the land and the פירות.

SUMMARY There is no מיגו of לפירות הורדתיו, either because it is a מגו במקום עדים, or he prefers not to claim לפירות הורדתיו in order to collect the פירות as well.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of תוספות two answers?
2. When the מערער made his claim (in בי"ד) of גזולה היא בידו, was he aware that there were עדים that saw דדלי ליה צנא דפירי?
3. What would be the ruling if there are no עדים that דלי ליה צנא דפירי, but the מערער admits it; is he believed with a פה שאסר or not?⁵

footnotes: ¹ In this case the מערער claims that he did not sell the מחזיק anything and the מוחזק is eating the fruits בגזלנותא. ² In the case where the מערער claims לפירות הורדתיו, the מוחזק is not believed to keep the field (only פירות [for a limited time]), so here, where the מערער claims that he did not sell it, nevertheless he should be believed [to the extent that he retains the קרקע] with the מיגו of לפירות הורדתיו. [The reason he was דלי ליה צנא דפירי; the מערער can claim that he did it because he was forced.] ³ The מערער claims he did not sell anything to the מוחזק (neither the קרקע nor the פירות), so why is the מערער helping the מחזיק with the loading of the פירות; it is obvious that he sold it to him. [We do not accept the reason (mentioned in footnote # 2) that he did it out of fear.] It cannot be that he sold him the פירות, since (both the מחזיק and) the מערער denies there was a פירות sale; therefore we do not believe the מערער (that there was no sale at all since דלי ליה צנא דפירי), but rather we believe the מחזיק that the מערער sold him the field. ⁴ A מיגו is valid when the מגו claim is better than the actual טענה; however here the actual טענה (of גזולה היא בידו) is better than the מיגו (of לפירות הורדתיו), for with the טענה there is the possibility that he may retain both the קרקע and the פירות, however with the מיגו claim the מערער is certainly forfeiting the פירות. ⁵ See בל"י אות רנ.

ואי¹ לפירא אחתיה מאי הוה ליה למעבד—And if he allowed him for פירות; what could he have done

OVERVIEW רב זביד ruled that if the מערער claims לפירות הורדתיו he is believed [even if דלי ליה צנא דפירי]; but only within the first three years, however after three years he is not believed to claim לפירות הורדתיו, and the מחזיק retains the field (even if there was no דלי ליה צנא דפירי). רב אשי asked (רב כהנא), what is one to do if the לפירות הורדתיו contract was for more than three years. תוספות clarifies what רב אשי intended to ask.

אין לפרש דרב אשי סבר דלעולם נאמן לומר לפירות הורדתיך² – One should not assume that ר"א maintained that the מערער is always believed to claim לפירות הורדתיך (even after three years) and he argues with רב זביד – דאם כן קשה לרב אשי מאי טעמא דרבנן דבעו שלש שנים מיום ליום – For if this is indeed so that one is believed to claim לפירות הורדתיך even after three years, there is a difficulty according to ר"א; what is the reason of the רבנן in our משנה who require three full years from day to day – דהא לדידיה ליכא למימר כדמפרש רבא בריש פרקין³ – For according to ר"א we cannot say that the reason of the רבנן is like רבא explained it in the beginning of our פרק, namely – דעד שלש שנים מיזדהר איניש בשטריה טפי לא מזדהר – That a person is careful with his שטר up to three years, but after three years he is no longer careful with his שטר; this is not true according to ר"א – דהא לעולם צריך לשמרו פן יאמר לפירות הורדתיך⁴ – For a person must guard his שטר forever, lest the מערער claim לפירות הורדתיך! תוספות offers an additional proof that ר"א does not maintain that one can claim לפירות הורדתיך after three years: ועוד דאם כן היכי קאמר דאי לא תימא הכי דאיבעי ליה למחויי – And in addition; if indeed it is so that ר"א argues with ר"ז and maintains that one is believed to claim לפירות הורדתיך even after three years, how did רב כהנא answer ר"א; ⁵ that if you (ר"א) will not agree that the מערער should have protested – אלא לא בעי למחויי דחזקתו אינה חזקה דיכול לומר לפירות הורדתיו – But rather you (ר"א) maintain that the מערער need not protest, for the חזקה of the מחזיק is not a חזקה, since the מערער can claim לפירות הורדתיו; in order to disprove this line of reasoning, ר"כ – ומייתי⁶ ממשכנתא דסורא⁷ – Cites the case of משכנתא דסורא to disprove ר"א – ומאי מייתי אדרבה אם כדברי רב אשי תו ליכא פסידא שיכול לומר לפירות הורדתיך⁸ – But what proof is ר"כ bringing from**** משכנתא דסורא, on the contrary, if ר"א is correct; there can no longer be any loss to the לוה, for he can claim to the מלוה that לפירות הורדתיך! תוספות bought two proofs that ר"א never maintained that לפירות הורדתיו is effective after three years. תוספות will now explain the question of ר"א. ונראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דרב אשי לא בא להאמינו אחר ג' אם אומר לפירות הורדתיך – And it is the view of the רשב"א that ר"א did not intend that we should believe the מערער if he claims לפירות הורדתיך after three years (as תוספות just proved that this cannot be the intention of ר"א) – אלא שואל איזו תקנה יש לעשות מתחלה שלא יוכל לומר לאחר שלש שלי היא – But rather ר"א was (merely) asking what provision can we initially make (for one who is leasing his field for פירות) so that the מחזיק should not be able to say after three years, ‘it is mine’, in a case – כשהורידו לפירות – Where the מחזיק was allowed just for פירות. רב אשי asked this question – דסבר לא מהני מחאה אלא כשאמר פלניא גזלנא הוא דקא אכיל לארעאי בגזלנותא – Because he thought that a מחאה is effective only when the מערער said, ‘that person is a גזלן for he is consuming my land illegally’ – והיכא דאחתיה לפירות לא מצי למחויי הכי⁹ וכן פירש הקונטרס¹⁰ – But where the מערער brought down the מחזיק for פירות (only), he cannot make such a מחאה of פלניא גזלנא הוא וכו'; for the מחזיק is legally consuming the פירות, and the רשב"ם explains the גמרא in a similar fashion.** והשתא מייתי שפיר ממשכנתא דסורא דמהניא מחאה כי האי גוונא –** And now indeed ר"כ brings a proper proof from משכנתא דסורא that this type of מחאה (of לפירות הורדתיו) is a valid מחאה (provided it is made within three years).

SUMMARY All agree that לפירות הורדתיו can [only] be claimed within three years.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did רב אשי assume that only the מחאה of פלניא גזלנא הוא is a valid מחאה; however the מחאה of לפירות הורדתיו is not a valid מחאה (even if it is made within the first three years¹¹)?¹²
2. תוספות goes through much effort to disprove the 'אין לפרש', and explains the גמ' according to the רשב"א ורשב"ם.¹³ What would lead us initially to reject the פי' הרשב"ם and (mistakenly) assume the אין לפרש?!
3. According to the אין לפרש, why is it that if the מערער claims (after three years) שדה זו גזולה ממני he is not believed, but if he claims (after three years) לפירות הורדתיו he is believed?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ Others amend this to read אי. ² One may interpret the question of ר"א as follows. He disagrees with ר"ז, who maintains that after three years the מערער cannot claim לפירות הורדתיך, but rather the מערער can always claim לפירות הורדתיך, even after three years. ר"א disagrees with ר"ז and proves that he is correct, for otherwise what can one do if he sells his פירות for more than three years. Obviously he must be believed. תוספות rejects this explanation. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ כט,א. ⁴ If we assume that ר"א maintains that a מערער can always claim לפירות הורדתיך (and unless the מחזיק presents the שטר מכירה, the מרער will retake the field, even after the מחזיק was there for three years), we can no longer use the explanation of רבא that since a person keeps his שטר for no longer than three years therefore the חכמים were מתקן that after three years it is a חזקה; for a person must keep his שטר forever out of concern that the מערער will claim לפירות הורדתיך and will be believed to retake the field, ומה הועילו חכמים בתקנתם (according to this understanding of ר"א). ⁵ We are now assuming that ר"א (argues with ר"ז and) maintains the מערער can always claim לפירות הורדתיו, because otherwise how can one protect himself if he leases out his field for more than three years. ר"כ rejects this proof, for in reality one cannot claim לפירות הורדתיך after three years, and if one leased for more than three years he should protest (in order to protect himself) within three years, saying that this field which is in the possession of the מחזיק has only been leased to him and not sold (so if it was indeed sold the מחזיק should keep his שטר מכירה, and if it was not sold, the מערער is in no danger of losing his field). This was the refutation of ר"כ to the proof of ר"א. ⁶ ר"כ proves his point that this type of מחאה where the מערער claims לפירות הורדתיו (within three years) is a valid מחאה (equal to the מחאה of פלניא גזלנא הוא), from the case of משכנתא דסורא (see following footnote # 7). If the מחאה of לפירות הורדתיו is not a proper מחאה, how can the חכמים institute a משכנתא דסורא which may cause the לוה to lose his field?! This proves that there is no concern, for the לוה can be מוחה that לפירות הורדתיו (within three years.). תוספות now challenges that ר"כ did not disprove ר"א at all (if we assume that ר"א maintains that לפירות הורדתיו is valid even after three years). ⁷ A משכנתא דסורא is where the מלוה and לוה agree that (instead of the לוה repaying the loan with money at a given date) the מלוה will eat the פירות of the sלוה' field for a set amount of time (regardless whether the amount of פירות will exceed the loan or be less than the loan), and after this time the field will revert back to the לוה. ⁸ ר"א will maintain that there never was a problem by משכנתא סורא, for the לוה can claim at the end of the משכנתא that לפירות הורדתיו (and he need not be מוחה within three years; the claim of לפירות הורדתיו is sufficient). ⁹ ר"א presumed that making a מחאה of לפירות הורדתיו (even within the first three years) will not be effective after three years; even if the מחזיק has no שטר he will still retain the קרקע. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. [Obviously during the first three years it will not be a חזקה, for he has no שטר; it is not because of the מחאה of לפירות הורדתיו.] ¹⁰ See רשב"ם ד"ה דאי. ¹¹ See footnote # 9. ¹² See נח"מ. ¹³ See footnote # 2. ¹⁴ See בל"י אות רנה-ו.