מלוה על פה אינו גובה לא מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות—An oral loan cannot collect neither from the heirs, nor from the buyers

OVERVIEW רב ושמואל both ruled than an oral loan cannot collect from the heirs of the לוה, and not from those who bought properties from the לוה (even) after the loan.¹ תוספות explains the reason (and novelty) of this ruling. There is a dispute² whether שעבודא דאורייתא or שעבודא לאו דאורייתא;³ when a לוה borrows money do we maintain that there a lien on his assets מן התורה that they are indentured to the מלוה for the loan – שעבודא דאורייתא, the view of עולא, or we maintain that מן התורה only the לוה is obligated to repay the loan, however there is no lien on his assets⁴ – שעבודא לאו דאורייתא, the view of רב ושמואל.⁵

לא איצטריך אלא משום יורשין דלקוחות תנינא בהדיא⁶ – It was not necessary for רב ושמואל to teach us this ruling regarding לקוחות, only regarding יורשין, for regarding לקוחות the משנה taught it explicitly that המלוה בעדים without a שטר, he is גובה only from נכסים בני חורין. וקסבר שעבודא לאו דאורייתא⁷ – And רב ושמואל who maintain that a מלוה ע"פ is not גובה מן היורשין maintain that there is no concept of שעבור according to תורה law. ומלוה בשטר שהוא גובה היינו שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין⁸ – And the reason a מלוה בשטר collects from יורשים ולקוחות is only because ‘you should not close the door in the face of the borrowers’ ומכר⁹ נמי משום תקנת השוק¹⁰ – And also regarding a sale there is a שעבוד on the assets of the seller because of ‘improving the market’. However by מלוה ע"פ (where the מלוה showed that he was not concerned about his loan), there was no תקנת חכמים, therefore the מלוה cannot collect from either the לקוחות or the יורשים. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דביורשין לא שייך לחלק בין מלוה על פה למלוה בשטר¹¹ – And even though by heirs it is not applicable to differentiate between a מלוה ע"פ and a מלוה בשטר so why do רב ושמואל maintain that a מלוה בשטר can collect from the יורשים and a מלוה ע"פ cannot collect from the יורשים?¹² תוספות responds: מכל מקום כל היכא דגבי לקוחות חיישינן משום נעילת דלת¹³ כמו מלוה בשטר – Nonetheless, wherever regarding לקוחות we are concerned for the מלוה because of נעילת דלת like by a מלוה בשטר where we allow the מלוה to collect from לקוחות –**** [תוספות offers other examples where the creditor collects from לקוחות besides a מלוה בשטר:] או מלוה הכתובה בתורה¹⁴ למאן דאמר (קדושין כט,ב) ככתובה בשטר דמי – Or a debt which is written in the תורה, according to the one who maintains that it is like it is written in a שטר – או כשעמד בדין¹⁵ או עשה עבדו אפותיקי¹⁶ – Or where the case was decided in בי"ד, or he mortgaged his slave, in all these abovementioned cases¹⁷ where the creditor collects from the לקוחות – גבי נמי מיתמי¹⁸ – He also collects from the יתומים (even though the concept of publicity is irrelevant as far as the יתומים are concerned) – אבל מלוה על פה כיון דלא חשש לעשות שטר לגבות מלקוחות – However by a מלוה ע"פ since the מלוה was not sufficiently concerned about his loan to make a שטר in order to collect from the לקוחות indicating that (in this situation) he is willing to lend without a guarantee, therefore – כי לא גבי נמי מיתמי ליכא נעילת דלת – If he will not collect from the יתומים either, there is no נעילת דלת for this מלוה has already shown that he is willing to lend without any concern about repayment. תוספות mentions an anticipated difficulty: והא דאמרינן בפרק קמא דבבא קמא (דף יא,ב) גבי¹⁹ הלכה גובין מן העבדים – And that which [עולא said in the name of ר' אלעזר] ‘the rule is, a מלוה may collect his debt by taking slaves as payment’; regarding this statement – אמר רב נחמן לעולא אמר רבי אלעזר אפילו מיתמי – ר"נ said to עולא, ‘did ר"א say that the מלוה can collect the slave as payment even from the orphans of the לוה’? עולא answered – לא מיניה מיניה ואפילו מגלימא דעל כתפיה²⁰ – ‘No’; ר"א said that the מלוה can collect the slave as payment only from the לוה. To which ר"ה responded, ‘from the לוה’!? Obviously he can collect עבדים from the לוה, for the מלוה can even take the ‘shirt off his back’ for collecting a loan; why is it necessary to teach us that he can collect the slave as payment. This concludes the citation of the גמרא there.²¹ תוספות concludes, the answer to the difficulty –

Is explained there in ב"ק.

SUMMARY The ruling of מלוה ע"פ אינו גובה מן היורשין follows the view that שעבודא לאו דאורייתא. Whenever one is גובה from the לקוחות one is גובה from the יורשים and vice versa.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains why we collect from יתומים by stating that whenever there is נעילת דלת and we collect²³ from לקוחות we also collect from יתומים (presumably for there too there is נעילת דלת). תוספות chooses to give other examples (besides מלוה בשטר) where we collect from לקוחות (i.e. העמדה בדין, אפותיקי) and we should also collect from יתומים.²⁴ However in the aforementioned cases there is seemingly no נעילת דלת; why then does תוספות mention (in the beginning of his explanation) the concept of נעילת דלת?!²⁵

footnotes: ¹ A מלוה בשטר can collect (even) from those who bought property (לקוחות) from the לוה after the loan (if the לוה does not own sufficient assets). ² לקמן קעה,ב. ³ If שעבודא דאורייתא then all the assets of the לוה at the time of the loan are משעובד to the מלוה, therefore even if he sells them or he dies and they are inherited, nevertheless the מלוה has the right מן התורה to collect these assets (which were bought or inherited) from the לקוחות or the יורשים. In truth this would apply even to a מלוה ע"פ, however the חכמים enacted that a מלוה ע"פ cannot collect from the לקוחות since there is no publicity and so the לקוחות would be unfairly harmed (and/or people would be reluctant to buy, out of concern that the seller owes money). See footnote # 5. ⁴ Nonetheless (even according to the מ"ד שעבודא לאו דאורייתא), the חכמים were מתקן that a מלוה can collect from יורשים ולקוחות (by a מלוה בשטר [only]), in order that people should be willing to lend money [for they are assured that they will be repaid, since the properties of the לוה are indentured to the מלוה]. See footnote # 5. ⁵ One practical difference whether we maintain שעבודא דאורייתא or לאו דאורייתא is regarding collecting a מלוה ע"פ from יורשים. If we maintain שעובדא דאורייתא so therefore since מה"ת even a מלוה ע"פ can collect from יורשים ולקוחות (see footnote # 3); it is only that the חכמים prevented collection from לקוחות so that they should not be unduly harmed (for they paid money and will lose their purchase), however regarding יורשים who are not losing any money they invested, we will follow the תורה ruling that שעבודא דאורייתא and the מלוה will collect from the יורשים. However if we maintain שעבודא לאו דאורייתא, it is only the חכמים who created a שעבוד (see footnote # 4), we can say that the שעבוד was only במלוה בשטר but not במלוה ע"פ, therefore one cannot collect from the יורשים, since they did not borrow any money and the assets of the לוה are not משעובד by a מלוה ע"פ. ⁶ לקמן קעה,א. ⁷ See footnote # 5. ⁸ If there will be no lien on the sלוה' properties, no one would lend money, out of concern that they will not be repaid. See footnote # 4. ⁹ When a sale is made, the assets of the seller are משעובד to the buyer that in case the property bought is taken away from the buyer, either by a מלוה (whom the seller owes money to) or by a נגזל (the field never belonged to the seller); in these cases the buyer can be compensated for his loss from any property that the seller had in his possession at the time of the sale, even if he subsequently sold those properties, this buyer can collect from them. ¹⁰ If the buyer is not assured that his purchase is guaranteed by the assets of the seller, he will be reluctant to buy, out of concern that there may be a lien on this field, or it may not even belong to the seller. See footnote # 9. ¹¹ The reason why the חכמים were מתקן (according to the מ"ד שעבודא לאו דאורייתא) to collect from יורשים ולקוחות (even though מה"ת there is no שעבוד) is in order שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין (see footnote # 4). However the חכמים distinguished between a מלוה בשטר (which has publicity), where the מלוה collects from the לקוחות (since they were aware there is a lien on this property), and a מלוה ע"פ (which has no publicity) where the מלוה does not collect from לקוחות (since they were not aware of any loan or lien on this property), so that they should not by unduly harmed. However יורשים inherit the land automatically, regardless if it is a מלוה בשטר or a מלוה ע"פ and in any case they are not unduly harmed (for they merely inherited the property; they did not pay for it) so the ruling by מלוה ע"פ should be the same as by a מלוה בשטר. See footnote # 5 & 12. ¹² The ruling (regarding יתומים) should seemingly be either that we never collect from יתומים (for their protection) or we always collect from יתומים (because of נעילת דלת בפני לוין). ¹³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁴ The example discussed there in קידושין is regarding the redemption of the first born. One מ"ד maintains that פדיון הבן since it is כתובה בתורה it is ככתובה בשטר דמי and the assets of the father are משעובד for this obligation. ¹⁵ Once בי"ד rules that a person owes money to another [even if it was not in a case of מלוה בשטר, but (even in a מלוה ע"פ or) for other reasons; he owed wages or he damaged his property, etc.], there is sufficient publicity to warrant that the creditor may collect from the נכסים משועבדים of the debtor (i.e. from any property the debtor sold after the העמדה בדין). ¹⁶ If the לוה designated his slave to be the (sole) source of payment for the מלוה, the מלוה can claim this עבד as payment, even if the לוה sold him (and even if it was a מלוה ע"פ [see תוס' מד,ב ד"ה עשה]). ¹⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁸ The מלוה wrote a שטר חוב to insure that his loan is guaranteed by the assets of the לוה (even if he sells them); however if he cannot collect from the יורשים his loan is not guaranteed, for perhaps the לוה will die [without selling any property] before he paid up his debt and the מלוה will not be able to collect his loan from the יורשים. ¹⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read גבי אמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר הלכה. ²⁰ The גמרא there concludes that this rule of גובה מן העבדים is in a case where he made the עבד an אפותיקי (see footnote # 16), in which case the מלוה may collect the עבד as payment even if the לוה sold the עבד. ²¹ The difficulty from that גמרא is (as תוס' explains later קעה,ב ד"ה לא) that it is seemingly indicated from the גמרא there (by the exchange אפי' מיתמי – לא מיניה) that even though he may collect the עבד from the לקוחות, nevertheless he cannot collect the עבד from the יתומים. This (seemingly) contradicts the entire thrust of תוספות here that there is more reason to collect from יתומים (who are not losing invested capital) than to collect from לקוחות (who stand to lose their investment). Why is it that by עבד you collect from לקוחות but not from יתומים? ²² ב"ק יא,ב תוס' ד"ה כגון. There תוס' explains that in the מסקנא the מלוה can collect the עבד from the יתומים as well as from the לקוחות. [However תוס' later ב"ב קעה,ב ד"ה לא maintains that in the case of עשה עבדו אפותיקי he collects from the לקוחות and not from the יתומים. The reason as תוספות states there is because 'משום שעשו חוצפה לקנות דבר שיש עליו קול שהוא משועבד, והאי טעמא לא שייך ביורשין'. In the case of a מלוה ע"פ however the ruling is that you collect from the יורשים but not from the לקוחות (at least according to the מ"ד שעבודא דאורייתא); because the לקוחות did nothing wrong since there was no קול and they need to be protected.] ²³ See footnote # 13. ²⁴ See footnote # 17. ²⁵ See נח"מ.

בפני האב שנה כולי—A year in the presence of the father, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a ברייתא which states that if the מחזיק made a חזקה for a year while the father was alive and two more years (after the father passes away) in the lifetime of his son (or vice versa) it is a valid חזקה. Our תוספות reconciles this ברייתא with another seemingly contradictory ruling.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן בפרק שני דכתובות (דף יז,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל ואחת)– And regarding this which the גמרא states in the second פרק of מסכת כתובות – אמר רב הונא אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ואפילו הגדיל – רב הונא ruled, ‘one cannot make a חזקה in the estate of a minor; and even if he reached maturity a חזקה is ineffective’; the explanation of ואפילו הגדיל – לא כמו שיש מפרש שם¹ דיתום אפילו גדול במילי דאבוה קטן הוא² – Is not like the one who interprets it there to mean that even a גדול is considered a קטן regarding the affairs of his father – ואין מועלת חזקה לגביה אפילו שהיה גדול כשמת אביו – And therefore the חזקה will be ineffective regarding this son, even if he was a גדול when his father died; this interpretation is incorrect – דהא הכא אמר בהדיא דהוי חזקה כשאכל בפני הבן והאב שני חזקה³ – For here the ברייתא explicitly states that it is a חזקה when the מחזיק consumed the produce in the presence of the son and the father for the duration of the required three חזקה years – תוספות offers his interpretation of אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן: אלא דוקא שהיה קטן כשמת אביו אינה חזקה אף על פי שאחרי כן הגדיל. Rather the ruling of ר"ה that אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן means that it is not a חזקה, only if the son was a קטן when his father dies, even though he became a גדול later and the מחזיק made a חזקה during the time the son was a גדול. However if the son was a גדול when the father died it is a חזקה if אכלה שני חזקה בפני הבן והאב.⁴** רבינו יצחק:** The forgoing is attributed to the ר"י.

SUMMARY When the son reached maturity in his father’s lifetime the חזקה is valid by the son. If he reached maturity after his father passed we apply the rule of אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does תוספות here not accept the explanation of the ר"ת⁵ offered in מס' כתובות?
2. Seemingly תוספות understands the פי' (הרשב"ם) that אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ואפי' הגדיל to mean that even if he was a גדול when the חזקה began, nevertheless it is not a חזקה בפני הבן (otherwise there would be no question from the ברייתא⁶). According to this understanding, there is an additional difficulty in the words of רב הונא when he said 'ואפילו הגדיל'; for ר"ה meant (according to this understanding) even if he was a גדול (not that he became a גדול). Why did not תוס' ask this question (as well)?!⁷

footnotes: ¹ See תוספות there ד"ה ואחת; this is the פירוש of ר' שמואל (רשב"ם). ² The חזקה began during the lifetime of the father. The son during that חזקה period even if he was a גדול (sometime during this period) is not aware of his father’s assets, and never realized that someone is making a חזקה in his father’s property, therefore he did not make a מחאה after his father’s death.. ³ According to the פי' (הרשב"ם) this law (stated in the ברייתא that אכלה בפני האב ובפני הבן הרי זו חזקה) can never be since he maintains that even if the בן was a גדול when the father dies it is not a חזקה. So what case is the ברייתא discussing?! See the ר"ת in תוספות there who defends this פי' (הרשב"ם) from תוספות question here and explains that according to the רשב"ם the rule of the ברייתא is in a case where the son was already a גדול before the חזקה began. However if the son was a קטן when the חזקה began, even though he became a גדול before his father’s death it is not a חזקה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 & 2. ⁴ Presumably a father informs his mature children regarding his assets (and would have told his בנו גדול) regarding this (disputed) field; however he would not share this information with his minor children. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ See footnote # 3 and ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ See נח"מ.

ואי סלקא דעתך לוקח אית ליה קלא אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו—And if it enters your mind that there is publicity by a purchaser, there is no greater protest than this

OVERVIEW The ברייתא taught if a three year חזקה was made against a מרא קמא; first the father lived there for a year, then the son inherited the father and lived there for a year, then the son sold it to a buyer who lived there for a year, it is a valid חזקה if the מערער did not make a מחאה during the three years. The מערער cannot claim that he was not מערער the third year because the person who was מחזיק then is a different person than the previous occupants (father and son),¹ for we say that the sale is publicized and the מערער knew that the buyer’s חזקה is a continuation of the חזקה started by the father and son. The גמרא asks that this presumption that a sale has a קול is contradicted by the סיפא of this² ברייתא which states that if a person makes a three year חזקה; the first year during the lifetime of the מרא קמא, the second year during the lifetime of his son, and the third year after the son sold it to a buyer (and no one made a מחאה during these three years) it is a valid חזקה. However if there is publicity by a sale so when the son sold it to the לוקח this was a valid מחאה against the מחזיק, which the son is making, so the מחזיק should have kept his שטר. The גמרא replies that this latter ברייתא is where the son sold all his properties (not the disputed property specifically) and the argument is whether the disputed property is included in the sale. תוספות offers an alternate resolution to this contradiction.

אומר רבינו יצחק דהוי מצי לשנויי כאן בשטר כאן בלא שטר – The ר"י sates that the גמרא could have answered and distinguished between the two ברייתות saying that here (in the first ברייתא where לוקח has a קול) we are discussing a case where sale was with a שטר, therefore the עדי השטר are מוציא a קול and the חזקה is valid) and here (in the second ברייתא where לוקח has no קול) it is without a שטר (and therefore there is no קול) – תוספות proves that there is a distinction whether the sale was with or without a שטר: דאין מצטרפין אלא בשטר כדאמרינן לעיל – For לקוחות cannot combine to make a חזקה unless they sold to each other the property with a שטר as רב ruled previously³ – תוספות offers a tentative reason why the גמרא did not use this distinction:

But perhaps the גמרא gave a better answer.

SUMMARY There is a קול by לקוחות (regarding חזקה ומחאה), [only] if the sale was made with a שטר.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות answers that if the sale is not בשטר (only with עדים) it is not a מחאה. Seemingly a מחאה does not require a שטר only עדים that he is מוחה, and since אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו why does this sale not invalidate the חזקה?!⁵

תם ולא נשלם פירושי התוספות לפרק חזקת הבתים והבורות בעזרת אדון הנפלאות נשוב לסיים פרקין עד גמירא בברכת נורא על כל תהילה

footnotes: ¹ They are not מחזיק כדמחזיקי אינשי; one year this one, the next year another one. ² See תוספתא פ"ב ה"ג that these two ברייתות are written in sequence. See footnote # 4. ³ מא,ב. If three people made a חזקה in three consecutive years, one year per person where the property was sold from one to the other, it is a חזקה if the sale was with a שטר, for then the מערער is aware of the sale and cannot claim that each one made only a חזקה for a year. ⁴ The advantage of the sגמרא' answer may be that it is applicable even if we maintain that עדים without a שטר also has a קול. See מהרש"א מהוד"ב for an alternate explanation; if we assume that both ברייתות are connected (see footnote # 2) then it is difficult to say that one is בשטר and the other שלא בשטר (for the ברייתא could have mentioned one case and differentiated whether or not it was בשטר), however we can say (according to the sגמרא' answer) that indeed both ברייתות are where he sold שדותיו סתם [in the first ברייתא it is a חזקה because the לוקח was utilizing the field (so the מערער should have been מוחה), and in the latter ברייתא it is a חזקה because there is no proof that he sold the disputed field]. See נח"מ. ⁵ See מהרש"א, נח"מ and בל"י אות תח.