קסבר רב פפא כי אמר רב לא שנא מלוה לא שנא פקדון—רב פפא maintains that רב said his ruling regardless whether it is a loan or a deposit

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that רב פפא does not agree with רב זביד that our משנה is in a case where the money was given במעמד שלשתן, for then there is no need (for רב) to limit the משנה to a case of צבורין, since רב maintains that מעמ"ש is effective even by a loan.¹ תוספות explains why indeed רב limited the משנה to a case of צבורין.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולרב פפא ורב² גופיה אמאי לא אוקי מתניתין במעמד שלשתן ואפילו אין צבורין – And if you will say; and according to רב פפא (who maintains that [according to רב] the rule of מעמד שלשתן is effective even by a מלוה), why did not רב establish our משנה in a case of מעמ"ש and even if it was not צבורין?!³ תוספות anticipates a possible answer: וכי תימא משום דלא משמע ליה לישנא דמתניתין במעמד שלשתן⁴ – And if you will say (the reason רב did not establish the משנה by מעמ"ש [without צבורין]) is because the syntax of the משנה does not indicate that we are discussing מעמ"ש, but rather a regular gift – תוספות rejects this solution: אם כן מהאי טעמא הוה ליה למימר דרב פפא לא אמר כרב זביד⁵ – If indeed that is the reason why רב does not establish the משנה by מעמ"ש, then the גמרא should have given this very same reason why ר"פ disagrees with ר"ז! תוספות answers: ויש לומר אף על גב דמתניתין לא משמע ליה לרב במעמד ג' – And one may say; even though that according to רב, the משנה does not seem to be discussing מעמ"ש – מכל מקום מדאתא רב פפא לאיפלוגי ארב זביד משמע שיש לו כח וטעם – Nevertheless (that is not a sufficient explanation why ר"פ argues with ר"ז), since ר"פ comes to argue with ר"ז, it seems that ר"פ had a reason and a sureness – דבשום ענין לא מפרשא מילתא דרב משום מעמד שלשתן:⁶ That it is impossible to explain the statement of רב (that our משנה requires צבורין) on account of מעמ"ש.

SUMMARY רב פפא did not say the he disagrees with רב זביד because it does not seem that the משנה is discussing מעמ"ש (even though this is why רב does not establish it by מעמ"ש), because ר"פ wanted to give an irrefutable reason why (he maintains that) the משנה cannot be discussing מעמ"ש as ר"ז maintains.

THINKING IT OVER When תוספות writes that (according to רב) it does not seem that the משנה is discussing מעמ"ש,⁷ is that because since the רישא is not discussing מעמ"ש,⁸ similarly the סיפא is not discussing מעמ"ש, or is there another explanation?⁹

footnotes: ¹ When מעמ"ש takes place by a פקדון the מפקיד tells the נפקד (who has the פקדון in his possession) to give the פקדון to the recipient. This explains the idea of צבורין, that the money is present and available. If we assume (as ר"פ does) that מעמ"ש is effective by הלואה then the מלוה tells the לוה (instead of paying me) pay the recipient instead. In this case there is no צבורין, for there is no money present; it is just that the מלוה is transferring the obligation of repaying the debt to the recipient. Therefore according to ר"פ if the משנה is discussing מעמ"ש there is no need for צבורין. ² This is amended to read; 'רב'. ³ There is seemingly no need for רב to establish the משנה by צבורין according to רב פפא, since he maintains that (according to רב) the rule of מעמ"ש applies even by a loan where there is no money present (the לוה spent it already). ⁴ Therefore רב could not have established the משנה by מעמ"ש [without צבורין]. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ The גמרא should have said that רב פפא disagrees with רב זביד, since it does not appear that our משנה is discussing a case of מעמ"ש; the same reason why רב does not establish the משנה by מעמ"ש. Why was it necessary to create a new reason that מעמ"ש is effective even by מלוה?! It would seemingly be much simpler to give the reason of רב! In addition רב פפא would have refuted רב זביד even if we maintain (as רב זביד does) that מעמ"ש is effective only by פקדון, nevertheless the משנה is not discussing מעמ"ש. ⁶ The reasoning that the לשון המשנה does not support מעמ"ש, while acceptable is not irrefutable (for ר"ז maintains that the לשון המשנה does allow for מעמ"ש), therefore it was necessary for ר"פ to state that according to רב the rule of מעמ"ש applies even by a loan, therefore our משנה cannot be discussing מעמ"ש (according to רב) since there would be no need for צבורין, if מעמ"ש is effective even by a loan where the money is not present. This forces us to acknowledge that רב maintains (according to ר"פ) that the לשון המשנה indicates that we are not discussing מעמ"ש. ⁷ See footnote # 4. ⁸ See תוס' on עמוד א' ד"ה תנו. ⁹ See נח"מ.

ממאי מדקתני תנו ולא קתני כתבו—From where do we know this; since the משנה taught ‘give’ and it did not teach, ‘write’.

OVERVIEW רב זביד does agree with רב פפא, for if the משנה was discussing a שכיב מרע, why does the משנה state תנו שטר שחרור זה לעבדי לא יתנו לאחר מיתה, which implies that מחיים it is given, it we are discussing a שכ"מ then it is given מחיים even if he merely said כתבו.¹ Our תוספות explains that we cannot argue that תנו was written for a different reason.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא דקתני תנו אשמעינן דאפילו הכי אין כופין את היורשים לשחרר² – And if you will say; the משנה teaches us by stating תנו, that (even if the שכ"מ said תנו), nevertheless we do not force the heirs to free the slave; as the view – כרבי דפליג בירושלמי³ אדרבנן ואמר דתנו לא הוי כשיחררו אלא ככתבו ואין כופין – Of רבי who argues on the רבנן in תלמוד ירושלמי and maintains that saying תנו is not the same as saying ‘free him’, but rather תנו is like כתבו where we do not force the heirs to free the slave. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמתניתין לא אתא לאשמועינן בדין מצוה לקיים דברי המת⁴ – And one can say; that our משנה is not coming to teach us regarding the rule of ‘it is a מצוה to fulfill the words of the deceased’, meaning – אם כופין היורשים לקיים אם לאו – Whether we force the heirs to fulfill the deceased wishes or not – אלא לאשמועינן דאין גט לאחר מיתה⁵ – But rather the משנה teaches us the rule that ‘there is no גט after death’.⁶ תוספות offers an alternate answer to the initial question:

And furthermore our משנה presumably is according to the רבנן who argue with רבי and maintain that we do force the יורשים to free the slaves (if the master said תנו). Therefore we cannot say that there is a novelty by תנו that we do not force the heirs.

SUMMARY Our משנה discusses the rule of אין גט לאחר מיתה, but not whether מצוה לקיים דברי המת. According to the רבנן we force the heirs to free the slaves (even if it is a גט לאחר מיתה) since מצוה לקיים דברי המת.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות states that our משנה is not discussing מצוה לקיים דברי המת.⁷ However previously⁸ תוספות asks (on the question of והא לא משך), why did not רב explain the משנה because of מצוה לקיים דברי המת, which seems to contradict our תוספות!⁹

footnotes: ¹ However if we are discussing a בריא then it is understood, for we give it מחיים only if he said תנו, but not by כתבו. ² There is a reason for the משנה to write כתבו for that teaches us that even by כתבו we give the שטר שחרור if the master is alive. There is also a reason to write תנו for that teaches us that even if he said תנו the יורשין are not obligated to free the slave (there is no rule of מצוה לקיים דברי המת in this case [according to רבי]). The novelty of תנו (that the יורשין are not required to free the slave) seems more in line with the teaching of the משנה (that לא יתנו לאחר מיתה) than the novelty of כתבו (that it should be given מחיים). ³ In our פרק הלכה ה (דף ח,א). When the master said שחררו then all agree that we coerce the יורשין to free the slave. If he said כתבו שטר שחרור then all agree אין כופין את היורשין; however if he said תנו the רבנן maintain כופין את היורשין and רבי maintains אין כופין את היורשין. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ Therefore there is no point in writing תנו to teach us that the יורשים are not required לקיים דברי המת, since our משנה is not discussing that issue at all. [Our משנה however is discussing when a גט may be given over (מחיים, but not לאחר מיתה), therefore the novelty of כתבו would be (more) appropriate, that we give the גט (מחיים) even by כתבו.] ⁶ This means we cannot use this גט, however it is possible that we force the ירושים to free him with a new גט. ⁷ See footnote # 4. ⁸ יג,א תוס' ד"ה והא. ⁹ See מר דרור (לר' מרדכי עטייה) and סוכ"ד אות סה (הא') בד"ה ותירצו.

גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כולי תנהו לפלוני במעמד שלשתן קנה—It was stated: רב הונא said in the name of רב, etc. ‘give it to him’ in the presence of all three, he acquires it.

OVERVIEW The rule of מעמד שלשתן (the presence of all three) is when a benefactor wants to give a recipient money, which is owed to the benefactor by a לוה, or he wishes to give an object which the benefactor deposited by a נפקד; the benefactor tells the לוה or the נפקד, in the presence of the intended recipient, give him the money owed to me or the object which I deposited by you. As soon as the benefactor says this במעמד שלשתן, the לוה owes the money to the recipient and/or the פקדון belongs to the recipient. תוספות discusses various details of this rule.

אומר רבינו יצחק בן אשר וכן רבינו תם דבמעמד ג' קנה בעל כרחו של לוה או של נפקד – The ריב"א and the ר"ת maintain that מעמ"ש is effective even against the will of the לוה or of the נפקד; even though they do not wish to transfer the loan or the פקדון to the intended recipient, it nevertheless belongs to the recipient. תוספות proves his point: דאי לא קני אלא מרצונו למאן דאמר דוקא בפקדון קנה¹ – For if it is not effective unless they agree, then (there is a difficulty) according to the one who maintains that מעמ"ש is effective only by a פקדון, but not by a loan – למה הוצרכו לתקן מעמד ג' יאמר לו זכי² – Why was it necessary for the חכמים to institute this קנין of מעמ"ש, the benefactor should merely say to the נפקד, ‘acquire’ the פקדון for the recipient?!! תוספות rejects a possible refutation to his proof: ואין נראה לומר דהוצרכו לתקן למקום שאין הפקדון ביד הנפקד אלא ביד אחרים³ – And it does not seem likely that it was necessary to institute מעמ"ש in a situation where the פקדון is not in the possession of the נפקד, but rather it is in the possession of others, in which case – דלא יועיל אם יאמר זכי – It would not be effective if he would merely tell the נפקד, ‘acquire it for him’, and therefore they instituted מעמ"ש for such a case.⁴ תוספות offers an additional reason for rejecting the previous refutation: ועוד אף כשאין הפקדון ביד הנפקד יקנה באודיתא⁵ – And furthermore even when the פקדון is not in the possession of the נפקד there is still no need for מעמ"ש because the benefactor can transfer ownership through ‘admitting’ (if the נפקד is willing to transfer the פקדון to the third party) – כדאמר התם (בבא בתרא דף קמט,א) אדהכי נפקא אודיתא מבי איסור גיורא⁶ – As the גמרא stated there; ‘in the meantime an admission issued forth from the house of איסור גיורא’; proving that admitting is effective. If מעמ"ש is effective only ברצון, then there is no need to enact it since we can use זכי (if it is in the possession of the נפקד) or אודיתא (if it is not in his possession) – אלא נראה להם דאפילו בעל כרחו של נפקד קני – But rather it seems to them (the ריב"א ור"ת) that מעמ"ש is קונה even against the will of the נפקד where זכי is ineffective; only מעמ"ש can accomplish the transfer**.** תוספות offers (an additional) proof that מעמ"ש is קונה even בע"כ: וכן גבי איסור גיורא דקאמר רבא היכי ליקנינהו רב מרי להני זוזי אי במעמד ג' לא אזלינא – And similarly by איסור גיורא where רבא said, ‘how will רב מרי acquire these זוזי; if he intends to acquire them through מעמ"ש I will not go to them’ – משמע דאם היה הולך היה קונה בעל כרחו⁷ – It seems that if he would have gone to איסור and ר"מ, then ר"מ would acquire the זוזי even against the will of רבא –**** תוספות rejects an anticipated refutation of this proof: ואין לומר אם היה הולך שם היה מתרצה לפי שהיה מתבייש בפני איסור לומר אין רצוני⁸ – And we cannot say that if רבא would go there he would have agreed to the transfer, because he would be embarrassed to say in the presence of איסור, ‘I do not want this transfer’.תוספות rejects this reasoning – דאם כן בלא מעמד שלשתן הוה ליה למימר לא אזילנא שלא יאמר לו זכה – For if indeed that is the reason for he is embarrassed, then רבא should have said, ‘I will not go’, even without מעמ"ש in order that איסור should not tell him זכה, and רבא will be embarrassed to refuse his request – כי מסתמא היה הפקדון ביד רבא⁹ – for presumably the פקדון was in sרבא' possession.¹⁰ תוספות cautions: ומיהו לההוא טעמא דמפרש בסמוך¹¹ בההיא הנאה דקא משתניא ליה ממלוה כולי¹² – However according to the reason which רב אשי shortly offers, that on account of this benefit to the לוה that the מעמ"ש changes it from an old loan, etc., this – משמע דלא קני אלא מדעתו – Indicates that מעמ"ש is effective only with the consent of the לוה, which contradicts what תוספות taught. תוספות is not concerned, however:

for anyways the גמרא negates this explanation for other reasons. So there is no contradiction to תוספות position.

SUMMARY מעמ"ש is effective even against the will of the לוה or the נפקד.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that it is not necessary to institute מעמ"ש in a case where the פקדון is not ביד הנפקד, for he can transfer it through אודיתא¹³. Why in general was there a need to institute מעמ"ש if it is possible to transfer it through אודיתא?!¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא shortly discusses whether מעמ"ש is only by פקדון (where the object exists and is present) or it applies even by a loan (where the money is merely owed but it is not [necessarily] in the possession of the לוה). ² The פקדון (which belongs to the benefactor) is in the possession of the נפקד, and the נפקד is willing to transfer the ownership to the recipient, therefore all the benefactor needs to do is to tell the נפקד ([even] without the presence of the recipient) acquire the פקדון on behalf of the recipient! This is the rule of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. ³ This refutation assumes that מעמ"ש is effective only if the נפקד (or לוה) agrees; however we cannot always rely on זכי therefore it is necessary to be מתקן מעמ"ש. ⁴ תוספות הרא"ש explains why this refutation is 'אין נראה'; because it is unusual that the נפקד is not in possession of the פקדון, and the חכמים would not institute מעמ"ש (which is a הילכתא בלא טעמא) for a מילתא דלא שכיחא. ⁵ The benefactor can state that this פקדון (which is now ביד אחרים) really belongs to the recipient (and I deposited it by the נפקד on his behalf). This will resolve the issue in a case where the פקדון is ביד אחרים. See previous footnote # 4. Others however omit the word 'ועוד' and have the text read 'דאף כשאין וכו'. ⁶ See previously תוס' יג,א ד"ה והא footnote # 18. This merely proves that אודיתא is effective. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ If מעמ"ש is not קונה בע"כ, why did רבא say he will not go; he could just as easily said, ‘I will not agree to the transfer’; proving that not agreeing is no option. ⁸ The proposed refutation maintains that indeed מעמ"ש cannot be effective בע"כ; the reason רבא said I will not go, instead of I will go but not agree, because he would be embarrassed to say so. ⁹ We cannot say that רבא was not concerned about זכה since he was not in possession of the זוזי, since presumably he was in possession of the money, because he intended to acquire it as soon as איסור passed on. ¹⁰ The fact that רבא did not say I will not go because I’m afraid איסור will say זכה, proves that רבא was not embarrassed to refuse transferring the money to ר' מרי; it is only regarding מעמ"ש where רבא said that he will not go, for מעמ"ש is קונה even בע"כ (of רבא). ¹¹ See (top of) יד,א. ¹² Presumably the לוה owed this money to the מלוה for a period of time (and the loan was due and payable), now that he owes the money to a new person (a new מלוה), the לוה assumes he will be able to delay payment. ¹³ See footnote # 6. ¹⁴ See מהרש"ל, מהרש"א, etc.

תנהו לפלוני במעמד ג' קנה—Give it to him; in the presence of all three, he acquires it Overview¹ תוספות informs us of restrictions and conditions in the rule of מעמ"ש.

אומר רבינו תם דאף על גב דהמוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול² – The ר"ת states that even though the rule is that one who sells a note of debt to his friend and then the seller of the note (the original מלוה) forgives the לוה, the loan is forgiven. The לוה is not obligated to pay the buyer, nevertheless if the מלוה – מכר או נתן במתנה במעמד שלשתן אינו יכול למחול³ – Sold or gave as a gift (this שטר חוב) to someone במעמ"ש, the מלוה cannot forgive this loan, and the לוה owes the money to the buyer or receiver of this note. תוספות proves his point: וכן משמע בפרק ב' דקדושין (דף מח,א) דקאמר⁴ במלוה בשטר פליגי בדשמואל⁵ – And so it seems in the second פרק of מסכת קדושין where the גמרא states that the ברייתא is discussing a מלוה בשטר and they are arguing in the ruling of שמואל – דמאן דאמר מקודשת לית ליה דשמואל ומר אית ליה דשמואל⁶ – That the one who maintains she is not מקודשת (the view of ר"מ) does not agree with שמואל and the חכמים (who maintain אינה מקודשת) agree with שמואל. The גמרא there continues – ואיבעית אימא כולי עלמא אית להו דשמואל ובאשה סמכה דעתה קמיפלגי – And if you want I can say; everyone (ר"מ and the חכמים) agree with שמואל (that the מלוה can be מוחל the חוב), but they are arguing whether the woman trusts the מקדש – מאן דאמר מקודשת סבר דסמכה דעתה דלא שביק לדידה ומחיל לאחריני – ר"מ who rules מקודשת assumes the she trusts that the מקדש will not abandon her and will therefore not forgive the other (the לוה)**** the loan (while the חכמים do not assume this). תוספות continues with the גמרא there – וכי קאמר במלוה על פה פליגי⁷ בדרב הונא אי קנה במעמד ג' במלוה⁸ – And when the גמרא there explains the ברייתא that regarding an oral loan, they argue in the ruling of רב הונא whether מעמ"ש is effective even by a loan or only by a פקדון⁹. This concludes the citation from the גמרא – משמע דאי אית להו דרב הונא אף במלוה לכולי עלמא מקודשת – It seems that if they will agree with רב הונא even regarding a loan (that מעמ"ש is effective) then she will be מקודשת according to all (ר"מ וחכמים) – ואי יכול למחול אמאי מקודשת למאן דאית ליה גבי מלוה בשטר דלא סמכה דעתה – But if the מלוה can be מוחל (even by מעמ"ש) why is she מקודשת according to the חכמים who maintain by a מלוה בשטר that since she is not סכמה דעתה she is not מקודשת – ואמאי לא מסיק¹⁰ ואיבעית אימא כולי עלמא קנה במלוה אפילו מלוה על פה – So why did not the גמרא conclude, ‘and if I want I can say; that everyone agrees that מעמ"ש is effective by a loan and even by a מלוה ע"פ, however ר"מ וחכמים- ובאשה סמכה דעתה פליגי כדמסיק אדשמואל אמלוה בשטר – Argue whether אשה סכמה דעתה or not’, just as the גמרא concluded regarding שמואל in a case of מלוה בשטר – אלא משמע דבמעמד שלשתן אינו יכול למחול¹¹ – But rather since the גמרא did not conclude in this manner this indicates that by מעמ"ש the מלוה cannot be מוחל! תוספות asks: ואם תאמר בפרק החובל (בבא קמא דף פט,א) גבי היא שחבלה באחרים¹² – And if you will say; in פרק החובל regarding the case where a married woman wounded others – דפריך ותזבין כתובתה בטובת הנאה¹³ ומשני כל לגבי בעלה ודאי מחלה¹⁴ – Where the גמרא asks (why is she פטור); ‘but let her sell her כתובה for a טובת הנאה’ (and with this money she will pay the injured person) and the גמרא answers; whenever it has to do with her husband she will surely be מוחל her husband the כתובה. This concludes the citation from that גמרא, and תוספות asks: והשתא אכתי תמכור במעמד שלשתן דאז לא תוכל למחול – But now that there is no מחילה by מעמ"ש, she can still sell her כתובה במעמ"ש, for then she cannot be מוחל the obligation. She will then pay her victim with this money; why is she פטור?! תוספות rejects an anticipated solution to this question: דאף על גב דהבעל ודאי לא יתרצה¹⁵ הא פרישית¹⁶ דאפילו בעל כרחו קני¹⁷ – For even though the husband will certainly not agree to this arrangement, nevertheless I have previously explained that מעמ"ש is effective even against the will of the debtor. The question remains if מעמ"ש is קונה even בע"כ (of the debtor), why cannot the woman sell her כתובה במע"ש and pay her victim. תוספות has an additional question: ועוד¹⁸ גבי שחבלה בבעלה¹⁹ תמכור במעמד ג' דשם יתרצה הבעל כדי לגבות חבלתו – And furthermore regarding the case of a woman who wounded her husband, why is she פטור, let her sell her כתובה במעמ"ש, and pay her husband, for in that case the husband will agree to the sale in order to collect payment for his wound – תוספות presents a similar difficulty: וכן בסוף פרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יט,ב) גבי מצא שובר²⁰ – And similarly in the end of the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ regarding where one found a receipt of payment for a כתובה – דפריך בזמן שהאשה מודה אמאי יחזיר לבעל – Where the גמרא challenges why is it that when the woman admits to the validity of the שובר we return it to the husband – ניחוש דלמא כתבה ליתן בניסן ולא נתנה עד תשרי כולי²¹ – Let us be concerned that perhaps she wrote the שובר to give it to her husband in ניסן, but she did not give it to him until the following תשרי, etc. – ומשני שמע מינה איתא לדשמואל²² – And the גמרא answers; we derive from this ruling that שמואל is correct. This concludes the citation from that גמרא. Now תוספות concludes his question – והשתא ניחוש דלמא מכרה במעמד ג' דאינה יכולה למחול – But let us still be concerned for perhaps she sold the כתובה במעמ"ש where she cannot be מוחל, so the buyer knew that his claim cannot be revoked, but by returning this receipt to the husband we are hurting the buyer illegally! תוספות answers (the last three questions regarding כתובה): ויש לומר דלא תקינו מעמד ג' בכתובה דאפשר שלא תבא לידי גבייה לעולם²³ – And one can say; that the חכמים did not institute מעמ"ש by the sale of a כתובה, since it is possible that the כתובה will never be collected.²⁴ תוספות offers an alternate solution regarding the case of the שובר (only): ועוד יש לומר דהתם גבי שובר אין לחוש כלל דשמא מכרה במעמד שלשתן – And in addition one can say that there regarding the שובר there is no concern at all that perhaps she sold the כתובה במעמ"ש – דאם אין עדים שמכרה אם כן הבעל והאשה יכפרו המכירה²⁵ – For if there are no witnesses that she sold the כתובה, then the husband and wife will deny the sale – ואם יש עדים ואומרים שהבעל נתרצה או אפילו שתק ודאי השובר שקר²⁶ – And if there are witnesses who say that the husband agreed to the sale or even if he was silent and did not protest the sale, then certainly the שובר is false – ואם מיחה אז מוכח שהשובר אמת וליכא למיחש דלמא כתבה ליתן בניסן כולי: And if the עדים testify that the husband protested by the sale and claimed he already paid up the כתובה, then it is evident that it is a valid שובר and there is no concern that perhaps she wrote the שובר to give it in ניסן, etc.

SUMMARY One cannot forgive a loan that was transferred במע"ש. There is no תקנה of מעמ"ש by a כתובה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is there this difference that if a שט"ח is sold במעמ"ש the מלוה cannot forgive the loan; however if it is not sold במע"ש, then the מלוה can forgive the loan?²⁷
2. What is the logic that there is no מעמ"ש by כתובה since it may not be collected?²⁸

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to previous תוספות ד"ה גופא. ² ראובן (the מלוה) has in his possession a note from שמעון (the לוה) that he owes ראובן (a hundred dollars). ראובן sells this note to לוי (for less than a hundred dollars) [not in the presence of שמעון] so now שמעון owes לוי (a hundred dollars). Should ראובן be מוחל this loan to שמעון and absolve him from the responsibility to repay, then שמעון does not have to pay לוי (or ראובן). ]Elsewhere (see ב"ב קמז,ב תוד"ה המוכר) it is explained that ראובן will have to compensate לוי for the loss he caused him by revoking the loan (there is a discussion whether ראובן has to pay לוי the face value of the note or just compensate him for the amount he paid for the note).] ³ In this case ראובן sold or gifted the שטר to לוי in the presence of שמעון; telling שמעון that as of now שמעון owes the money to לוי. ⁴ The גמרא there (on מז,ב) cites a ברייתא which states that if one is מקדש a woman with a שטר חוב (someone owed the מקדש money which was documented in a שטר, and he gave it to the woman (as כסף קדושין) so now the לוה owes her the money), there is a dispute between ר"מ (who maintains she is מקודשת) and the חכמים (who maintain she is not מקודשת). ⁵ This is referring to the ruling of שמואל that המוכר שט"ח לאחרים וחזרו ומחול מחול. ⁶ The חכמים agree with שמואל that the מלוה (in this case the מקדש) can be מוחל the לוה the debt, so the woman does not feel she received anything of value (for the מקדש may be מוחל the חוב and she will have received nothing of value), therefore she is not מקודשת, while ר"מ disagrees with שמואל and the מקדש cannot be מוחל the debt, therefore the woman is מקודשת since she received something of value. ⁷ The ברייתא there mentioned an additional case (במלוה דאחרים) in the dispute between ר"מ וחכמים. The גמרא understood that this case is regarding a מלוה ע"פ. ⁸ The מקדש transferred the loan to her in the presence of the לוה. ר"מ agrees that מעמ"ש is effective even by a מלוה, therefore she is מקודשת; however the חכמים maintain that מעמ"ש is effective only by a פקדון, but not by a מלוה, therefore she is not מקודשת, for she received nothing. ⁹ The גמרא there did not conclude that everyone can agree that מעמ"ש is effective even by a מלוה, but they are arguing whether אשה סמכה דעתה that he will not be מוחל the loan, or not (as it had concluded previously concerning שמואל by a מלוה בשטר). ¹⁰ It is understood however why the גמרא does not answer here that פליגי בדשמואל (if one can be מוחל a מלוה ע"פ if it was transferred במע"ש) as the גמרא answered previously regarding a מלוה בשטר, because in this case there is no מחלוקת (see מהרש"א הארוך as to what the ruling will be in such a case). ¹¹ Therefore the גמרא could not have said that all agree that מעמ"ש is effective by a מלוה, for why would the חכמים maintain אינה מקודשת, since the מקדש cannot be מוחל the חוב. ¹² The גמרא there cites the משנה (on פז,א) that if a married woman wounded someone she is exempt from paying (because she has no money of her own [it belongs to her husband]). ¹³ Let us assume that the face value of the כתובה is two hundred דינרים, meaning that if her husband divorces her or he predeceases her, she will receive two hundred דינרים. The woman can sell this futures contract and the buyer will pay her for this right to collect the כתובה. The price will be (much) less than two hundred דינרים for maybe the husband will never divorce her and she will predecease him, in which case the buyer of the כתובה will receive nothing. This reduced price which she can receive for selling her כתובה is called טובת הנאה. ¹⁴ See the גמרא and רש"י there ד"ה וחזר that we do not allow her to sell the כתובה because since we are certain that she will be מוחל the כתובה; this will cause the buyer an undue loss. ¹⁵ The husband is not gaining anything by this and he would rather his כתובה be paid to his wife (upon his death) than to a stranger, for then her children (his children) will eventually retain it, but now he is losing it for a low price. [Alternately, he may not want his wife to achieve (any semblance of) financial independence, by her selling the כתובה (מפי ר' פז"ו מרזוב שי').] ¹⁶ See previous תוספות ד"ה גופא. ¹⁷ See מהר"ם שי"ף that בי"ד will force him to be present at the מעמ"ש, in order to pay the victim. ¹⁸ This is a difficulty even if we were to assume that מעמ"ש is effective only with the consent of the debtor (in this case; the husband). ¹⁹ The גמרא there (on פט,ב) cites a ברייתא that if a woman wounded her husband she suffers no loss. עיי"ש. ²⁰ The גמרא there cites a ברייתא that if someone found a receipt for a כתובה (where the woman acknowledges receiving payment for her כתובה), if the woman admits that she received the payment, we give the receipt to the husband (to keep as proof, so she cannot claim she never received her כתובה payment), if the woman denies receiving payment we do not give the receipt to either party. ²¹ ניסן time the husband told her he would pay up her כתובה, provided she writes him a receipt. The woman had a receipt written up dated some time in ניסן. The husband however did not pay her in ניסן, so she kept the receipt. Sometime after ניסן she sold her כתובה to a buyer (and wrote him a note that she sold him the כתובה in תמוז). The husband paid up her כתובה by תשרי time and she gave him the receipt which was dated the previous ניסן. When the buyer of the כתובה approaches the husband to collect the כתובה that he bought, the husband will show that he already paid the כתובה in ניסן (before the buyer bought it in תמוז) and therefore the sale to the buyer is invalid, because there was no longer a כתובה debt. By returning this receipt we are hurting this buyer fraudulently. ²² שמואל maintains המוכר שט"ח לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול. The buyer is not being hurt, for he knew initially that his purchase of the debt can be revoked at any time by the woman (the מלוה in this case). He accepted this risk. ²³ If the husband does not divorce her and she predeceases him, the כתובה remains in the estate of the husband. ²⁴ See תוספות ב"ק פט,א ד"ה כל who writes: תירץ ר"י דמעמד שלשתן אין מועיל בכתובה בעודה תחת בעלה כיון דעדיין לא ניתנה לגבות. ²⁵ The buyer is not losing anything no matter when the שובר was written. It is obvious (since the woman is admitting to receiving payment from her husband) that they are in collusion against this buyer; he has no chance of collecting for they will both deny that any sale took place. [It is important to remember, that there is no buyer before us, we are just concerned about the ramifications of returning the שובר to the husband.] ²⁶ The שובר is dated ניסן, and the עדים testify the sale took place the following תמוז with the husband agreeing or not protesting the sale; it is obvious that at the point the כתובה was not yet paid and it is a predated שובר and is invalid! ²⁷ See אמ"ה # 37. ²⁸ See נח"מ and בל"י אות שיג.

במעמד שלשתן קנה—In the presence of all three; he acquires it

OVERVIEW תוספות instructs us regarding the laws of מעמ"ש how they pertain to a gentile.

אומר רבינו תם דלא תקינו מעמד שלשתן בעובד כוכבים – ר"ת states that the חכמים did not institute מעמ"ש by a gentile. תוספות explains – אם הנפקד או הלוה עובד כוכבים ואמר ליה ישראל תנהו לישראל אחר לא קנה – If the נפקד or the לוה was a gentile and the ישראל (who is the מפקיד or the מלוה) told the gentile, ‘give the פקדון or pay the loan to another ישראל’, the ישראל does not acquire the פקדון or the מלוה. The reason is – כיון דאפילו אמר לו זכי לא קנה כיון דאין זכיה לעובד כוכבים¹ הוא הדין במעמד ג' לא קנה² – For since even if the ישראל told the gentile ‘acquire it for the ישראל’, the ישראל would not acquire it, for there is no 'זכיה' for a עכו"ם, the same rule applies by מעמ"ש that the ישראל is not קונה. תוספות continues with a different case of מעמ"ש – ואם המקבל עובד כוכבים ואמר ישראל לישראל תנהו לפלוני עובד כוכבים – And if the intended recipient is an עכו"ם and one ישראל (the מלוה or the מפקיד) told another ישראל (the לוה or the נפקד), ‘give it to that עכו"ם’, the rule is that – כל זמן שאינו חוזר בו יתן אפילו אמר ליה בלא מעמד ג' – As long as the giver does not retract, the נפקד/לוה should give it to the עכו"ם, even if he was told not במעמ"ש – אבל אם חוזר בו לא יתן לעובד כוכבים אפילו אם אמר לו במעמד ג' – However if he retracts, the נפקד/לוה should not give it to the עכו"ם even if he told him to give it to the עכו"ם במעמ"ש – אם לא שאינו יכול להשמט מן העובד כוכבים – Unless he cannot evade the עכו"ם who insists that he give it to him. ואם הנותן עובד כוכבים נראה³ דקנה – And if the benefactor is a gentile (and he told one ישראל [the נפקד or the לוה] to give it to another ישראל), it seems to תוספות that the ישראל is קונה. The reason is – דאם ממונו של ישראל⁴ הפקיעו על ידי מעמד ג' דהוי הלכתא בלא טעמא – For if the חכמים extracted the money of a ישראל through מעמ"ש which is a הלכתא בלא טעמא – כל שכן ממון העובד כוכבים – Certainly the חכמים can extract the money of an עכו"ם. תוספות offers another explanation for this last case: ועוד⁵ דבדיניהם דיינינן ליה שאמרינן לו לעובד כוכבים כך דינכם – And furthermore we judge them by their laws, for we tell the עכו"ם, ‘this is your law’, you also rule**** that the transfer (of מעמ"ש) is effective – כדאמרינן בהגוזל בתרא (בבא קמא קיג,ב):⁶ As the גמרא states in פרק הגוזל בתרא.

SUMMARY In the case of מעמ"ש with a gentile if he is the נפקד or לוה it is not effective, if he is the receiver one may give it to him if the benefactor does not retract and one should not give it to him (if he can get away with it) if the benefactor retracts (regardless if it was במע"ש), if the עכו"ם is the benefactor then it is קונה במע"ש.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות rules that if the נפקד/לוה is an עכו"ם there can be no קנין מעמ"ש, since זכי is not effective by an עכו"ם.⁷ Why is it then that מעמ"ש is effective even בע"כ of the נפקד/לוה, since זכי is not effective בע"כ of the נפקד/לוה?!⁸
2. Why is it that in the first two cases (where the עכו"ם is the recipient or the middle man) תוספות is certain what the ruling is; however in the last case (where the עכו"ם is the benefactor) תוספות merely says 'ונראה',⁹ meaning there is some room for doubt?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See ב"מ עא,ב – עב,א. The עכו"ם has no דין שליחות; therefore he can have no דין זכיה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² The rule of מעמ"ש is an extension of the rule of זכיה, where a third party acquires something for the recipient at the behest of the benefactor. If the third party is not capable of acquisition then he is certainly not capable of מעמ"ש. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ The ממון of the מלוה/מפקיד is being transferred away from him to the recipient. ⁵ Even if one were to question this כ"ש of תוספות (see footnote # 10), there is another reason why it is effective. ⁶ The גמרא there reads: דתניא ישראל וכנעני אנס שבאו לדין אם אתה יכול לזכהו בדיני ישראל זכהו ואמור לו כך דינינו, בדיני כנענים זכהו ואמור לו כך דינכם. See רש"ש (here). ⁷ See footnote # 1. ⁸ See קרבן נתנאל (על הרא"ש) אות ק. ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See בל"י אות שטו and אמ"ה # 58.

הקנה לנולדים הכי נמי דלא קנו—He granted it to those that will be born; is it indeed so that they do not acquire it

OVERVIEW אמימר explained the reason מעמ"ש is effective is because it is considered as if the לוה (נפקד) said to the מלוה (מפקיד) at the time of the loan, ‘I am committing myself to pay you or anyone whom you designate that I should pay’. רב אשי challenged אמימר that according to your explanation it turns out that הקנה לנולדים ה"נ דלא קנו. There appears to be different גירסאות here and תוספות explains the statement of רב אשי according to both גירסאות.

פירוש הקנה לנולדים במעמד שלשה שלא נולדו עדיין בשעת מתן מעות הכי נמי דלא קנו – The explanation of הקנה לנולדים means that he granted the loan through מעמ"ש to those who were not as yet born when the money was given from the מלוה to the לוה; and רב אשי asks will it indeed be so that they will not acquire it.¹ תוספות addresses another גירסא:** ולספרים דגרסי הכי נמי דקנו הכי פירושו –** And according to the texts that read; ‘is it indeed so that they do acquire it’, this is the explanation of sרב אשי' (rhetorical) question – הקנה לנולדים בקנין בעלמא בלא מעמד שלשה דלא הוו בשעת קנין שלא נולדו עדיין – If he granted it to נולדים, who were not born when the קנין was made, with a general קנין, not במעמ"ש – הכי נמי דקנו דהא במעמד שלשתן קנו אפילו נולדו אחרי כן: Is it indeed so that they acquire it (they should according to you אמימר), since by מעמ"ש they acquire it even if they were born after the loan was given.

SUMMARY We can be גורס either ה"נ דלא קנו or ה"נ דקנו. The question is the same; how can מעמ"ש be effective to a דבר שלא בא לעולם.

THINKING IT OVER How is תוספות גירסא (even the first one) different than ours?²

footnotes: ¹ The שעבוד of the לוה to the מלוה (and כל דאתו מחמתך) was made when the loan was given; however since these נולדים were not born as yet, it is a case of מקנה לדבר שלא בא לעולם, were all agree that he is not קונה. ² See רש"ש.

לדבר שאינו בעולם מי אמר—Did he say; to something which does not exist

OVERVIEW The גמרא assumes that it is more difficult to be מקנה to a דבר שלא בא לעולם than to be מקנה something which is לא בא לעולם. Our תוספות explains what this assumption is based on and how it applies to ר"מ.

הך סוגיא אליבא דרב הונא קיימא¹ דאית ליה אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם – This discussion (which states that it is easier to be מקנה a דבר שלא בא לעולם than to be מקנה to a דשלב"ל), is according to רב הונא who maintains that a person can be מקנה a דשלב"ל – ולא לדבר שלא בא לעולם – But he cannot be מקנה to a דשלב"ל – תוספות proves the abovementioned according to רב הונא: דבהאשה רבה (יבמות צג,א) אית ליה גבי פירות דקל² משבאו לעולם אינו יכול לחזור בו – For in פרק האשה רבה, we find that רב הונא maintains regarding the fruits of a tree, that once the fruits exist he cannot recant (this is a case of מקנה דשלב"ל) – ובפרק מי שמת (בבא בתרא דף קמב,א) קאמר רב הונא דהמזכה לעובר אף לכשתלד לא קנה – In פרק מי שמת, however, רב הונא rules that one who grants something to a fetus, the עובר does not acquire it even after the woman gives birth to the child (this is a case of מקנה לדשלב"ל), proving that אין אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל.**** תוספות presents an opposing view (to רב הונא): ורב נחמן הוי איפכא מדרב הונא דאית ליה התם לכשתלד קנה – And רב נחמן maintains the opposite of רב הונא, for ר"נ maintains there (by the עובר), that when she gives birth the עובר/child is קונה (indicating that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל)** ובהאשה רבה (יבמות צג,א) קאמר רב נחמן אף משבאו לעולם יכול לחזור בו**³ – In פרק האשה רבה, however, רב נחמן rules (regarding the פירות דקל) that even after the trees bore the fruit, he may retract, indicating that א"א מקנה דשלב"ל. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מהיכא שמעינן ליה לרבי מאיר דאדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם – And if you will say; and from where do we know that ר"מ maintains that אדם מקנה דשלב"ל – היינו מההיא דקתני (שם צג,ב) לאחר שתתגיירי ושתשתחררי מקודשת⁴ – It is from that ברייתא which states if a man says to a woman, ‘you are מקודשת to me after you will convert (she is now an עכו"ם) or after you will be freed’ (she is now a שפחה כנענית) the rule is that if she converts or is freed she is מקודשת to him; so – מההיא גופא שמעינן נמי דאדם מקנה לדבר שלא בא לעולם – From that very same ברייתא we also know that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל – דהא קתני לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שאשתחרר דמקודשת⁵ – For the ברייתא states if he says to a Jewish woman, be מקדושת to me after I will convert or after I will be freed (he is an עבד כנעני), she is מקודשת to him. Why does our גמרא state that according to ר"מ we may only assume that אדם מקנה דשלב"ל, but not אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל, when the same ברייתא that states that ר"מ maintains אדם מקנה דשלב"ל also states that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דעובד כוכבים ועבד איתנהו בעולם אלא שמחוסרים גירות ושחרור – And one can say that an עכו"ם and a slave are בעולם, they are just lacking the process of גירות and שחרור – ולא דמו לנולדים דליתנהו בעולם כלל⁶ – And they cannot be compared to unborn children, who do not exist at all. תוספות anticipates the following question: ואף על גב דילפינן מינה דאדם מקנה לרבי מאיר פירות דקל ולא מפלגינן – And even though we derive from this ברייתא that ר"מ maintains regarding פירות דקל that אדם מקנה a דשלב"ל and we do not distinguish and say that the עכו"ם ושפחה who is being acquired is בעולם, however the פירות דקל are not בעולם! Why do we make the distinction only regarding לדבשלב"ל, but not regarding a דשלב"ל?! תוספות replies: היינו משום דאית לן למימר דקאי בשיטתיה דרבי אלעזר בן יעקב דאמר (קידושין סב,ב) – That is because we can say that ר"מ follows the view of ראב"י who maintains – האומר פירות ערוגה זו מחוברין⁷ יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו התלושין – One who says, ‘the produce of this row which is still growing shall be תרומה for the produce of this other row which was harvested – לכשיביאו שליש ויתלשו דבריו קיימין: When the growing row will reach (at least) a third of their growth, and will be harvested’;⁸ his words are valid, and they become תרומה for the other row which was harvested previously.

SUMMARY רב הונא and רב נחמן have opposite views as to where it easier to be מקנה, either a דשלב"ל (ר"ה), or לדשלב"ל (ר"נ). We find that ראב"י clearly maintains מקנה דשלב"ל.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did not אמימר answer⁹ that he follows the view of רב נחמן?¹⁰
2. How is the case of לכשיביאו שליש (in which the פירות are at least sprouting) similar to פירות דקל (which do not exist at all)¹¹?

footnotes: ¹ The ruling of מעמ"ש was stated by רב הונא (אמר רב). ² רב הונא rules there that if someone sold the future fruits that the tree will bear (he may retract the sale before the tree bears fruit, however), after the tree bears fruit he cannot retract and the sale is valid. This indicates that he maintains אדם מקנה דשלב"ל. ³ רב הונא maintains that it is more important that the recipient exists (than that the item exists), while ר"נ maintains it is more important that the item exists (than that the recipient exists). See (end of) footnote # 7 and ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ This is a case of a דשלב"ל; for the woman (in the process of קידושין) is מקנה herself to her husband (she belongs to him and no one else). However the item that she is being מקנה (namely herself) is not בעולם, for currently she cannot belong to him until she is מתגייר or משתחרר. ⁵ This is a case of מקנה לדשלב"ל; for the man is the one who is קונה the אשה, and currently he is not בעולם since in his present status he cannot acquire her until he is מגייר or משתחרר. ⁶ Therefore even though ר"מ maintains that if the עכו"ם ועבד say לאחר שאתגייר ושאשתחרר she is מקודשת, that does not prove that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל, for the man does exist presently. ⁷ Produce which is growing is not מחוייב in תרומה and cannot be set aside as תרומה. Produce which did not grow a שליש is not considered produce at all. The פירות of the ערוגה זו המחוברין are not considered פירות at all. They are a דשלב"ל, and nevertheless ראב"י maintains that they can eventually become תרומה, proving that אדם מקנה דשלב"ל. Once we know of a תנא who clearly maintains that אדם מקנה דשלב"ל we can assume that ר"מ, who maintains by the שפחה that she is מקודשת לאחר שתשתחררי indicating that ר"מ maintains a similar (albeit not the exact same) ruling, he may also maintain that even if it is completely לא בא לעולם like by פירות דקל (or פירות ערוגה) one can also be מקנה it even though it is a דשלב"ל. However regarding לדשלב"ל where we do not find explicitly that any תנא maintains that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל, therefore we may not infer from the fact that ר"מ maintains by an עבד that she is מקודשת לאחר שאשתחרר, that אדם מקנה לדשלב"ל, since the עבד is בעולם (and is different from an עובר who is not בעולם). [In addition since we are following here the view of רב הונא, who maintains that it is more difficult to be מקנה לדשלב"ל that a דשלב"ל, therefore it is easier to make the transition from the ruling of ר"מ regarding a שפחה (a דשלב"ל) to פירות דקל, than to make the transition from עבד (which is a case of לדשלב"ל) who is בעולם to נולדים who are not בעולם.] ⁸ The words of לכשיביאו שליש ויתלשו are part of his statement. ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See נח"מ and בל"י אות שכ. ¹¹ See נח"מ.