מי יהיב לה תרקבא דדינרי ולא איפייסא—Did he give her three Kavin ofDinarin and she was not appeased

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates an incident where a man gave a גט to his wife with the stipulation that if I do not appease her within thirty days, the גט should be effective retroactively. He attempted to appease her, but the wife was not appeased. רב יוסף ruled that the גט is valid, since did he offer to give her three קבין of דינרין (a huge sum), therefore he did not appease her.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: אף¹ על גב דלית ליה אין טענת אונס² בגיטין והוי גט – Even though he does not have תרקבא דדינרי, nevertheless the גט is valid, for there is no אונס claim, regarding a גט. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וכי יהב לה נמי תרקבא דדינרי אמאי לא הוי גיטא הא לא איפייסא³ – And if you will say; and even if he gave her תרקבי דדינרי, why is it not a valid גט, since she was not appeased?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דאי לא פייסנא לה משמע אם לא אטרח לפייסה בדבר גדול⁴ – And the ר"י says that the stipulation, ‘if I do not appease her’, means, ‘if I will not trouble myself to appease her in a substantial way’ – ואי יהב לה הרי טרח לפייסה וקיים תנאו אף על פי שלא נתפייסה: So if he gave her תרקבי דדינרי, he troubled himself to appease her and he fulfilled his stipulation, even though she was not appeased.

SUMMARY אי לא פייסנא means I will try exceedingly hard to appease her, regardless whether she is appeased or not.

THINKING IT OVER Is the extraordinary effort that is required to fulfill his תנאי of appeasement, depend on the man (that he do something extraordinary for a person in his situation),⁵ or on the woman (that he does something extraordinary for a person in her situation)?

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מי. ² An אונס is an unforeseen situation which cannot be controlled. Presumably had the husband given her תרקבי דדיני she would have been be appeased, however since he did not give it to her this indicates that he did not try hard enough to appease her, therefore it is a גט, even though it is not possible for him to give her תרקבי דדינרי, for that is not an excuse since אין אונס בגיטין. ³ רב יוסף ruled that it is a גט because he did not offer her תרקבי דדינרי, but not because she was not appeased; indicating that if he would have given her תרקבי דדינרי it would not be a גט even if she was not appeased! However since the stipulation was it should be a גט unless I appease you, so since she was not appeased (even with תרקבי דדינרי), the גט should still be valid. In other words why did רב יוסף mention תרקבי דדינרי, he merely should have said it is a גט because she was not appeased! ⁴ The ר"י understands the תנאי of אי לא פייסנא to mean, ‘if I will not do everything in my power (and more) to appease her, it should be a גט’, therefore he must expend extraordinary effort to try and appease her; if he did so, then it is irrelevant whether or not she was appeased. We assume that he meant to expend extraordinary effort to appease her, but it is not dependent whether she is appeased or not, for that is something which is not in his hands that she should or should not be appeased, what is in his hands is to make the extra effort to appease her. ⁵ For instance if he is very wealthy and she is very poor (or vice versa), what is not so extraordinary for him may be extraordinary for her.

במכרי לא קתני—It does not state, ‘by his friends’

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that if one lent money to a כהן, etc., he may withhold the תרומה as a payment for his loan.¹ The גמרא asked how can this be, since the כהן never received the תרומה?!² רב answered that the משנה is discussing מכרי כהונה so it is considered as if the כהן received it.³ שמואל answered that he was מקנה the תרומה to the כהן (through an agent). The גמרא explains that שמואל does not learn like רב since the משנה does not mention מכרי כהונה, and רב does not learn like שמואל since the משנה made no mention of מזכה ע"י אחר. This obviously requires some clarification since the difficulty in each פשט is the same (that it is not mentioned in the משנה), why did each one (רב and שמואל) choose his particular interpretation?!

תוספות responds to the anticipated difficulty:⁴ אף על גב דמזכה נמי לא קתני⁵ מכל מקום ניחא ליה לאוקמי במזכה דאיירי בכל כהנים⁶ – Even though that מזכה is also not mentioned in the משנה, nevertheless it was more feasible to establish the משנה by מזכה since it is applicable to all כהנים, rather than establishing the משנה by מכרי כהונה which applies to a limited amount of כהנים – ומאן דמוקי לה במכרי משום דמזכה לא קתני אף על גב דמכרי נמי לא קתני – And רב who established the משנה by מכרי since the משנה does not state מזכה, even though it also does not state מכרי, because – משמע ליה מפרישין עליהן סתם⁷ בלא שום זיכוי: It seems to רב that the term מפריש עליהן which is stated simply without qualification indicates that it is done without any זיכוי (transference of ownership).

SUMMARY The advantage of מזכה is that it applies to all כהנים, and the advantage of מכרי כהונה is that fits well with מפרישין.

THINKING IT OVER Why did the גמרא have to mention, מכרי לא קתני and מזכה לא קתני, when the גמרא could have offered תוספות explanation why רב ושמואל disagree with each other?

footnotes: ¹ The lender separates the proper amount of תרומה and instead of giving it to the כהן, he may keep it or sell it and deduct the value of the תרומה from the amount the כהן owes him, thereby reducing the loan until it is paid up. ² See רש"י ד"ה ואע"ג. ³ See רש"י ד"ה במכרי. ⁴ See ‘Overview”. ⁵ Why therefore did שמואל choose the interpretation of מזכה over מכרי כהונה, since both are not mentioned in the משנה. ⁶ The משנה seems to be saying that this tactic may be done by all כהנים, not only מכרי כהונה, therefore it makes more sense to establish the משנה by מזכה. ⁷ The משנה seems to indicate that all that is required is to be מפריש, without any other action (including זיכוי) therefore רב would rather establish the משנה by מכרי כהונה.

כיחידאה לא מוקמינן—We do not establish it according to an individual Overview¹ עולא explained why in the משנה he can be מפריש the תרומה and deduct it from the loan, even though the כהן did not receive it, is because the משנה follows the ruling of ר' יוסי, who stated that עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה.² The גמרא said that רב ושמואל disagree with עולא, for we do not establish a משנה like a יחיד (meaning ר' יוסי). תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: אף על גב דשמואל פסיק בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יב,א) כרבי יוסי³ – Even though that שמואל ruled in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ like ר' יוסי – דעשו את שאינו זוכה כזוכה – That the חכמים occasionally made one who did not acquire something as if he acquired it, so what is the difficulty with establishing our משנה according to ר"י, since שמואל maintains that the הלכה is like ר"י – תוספות responds:

Nevertheless שמואל finds it more logical to establish our משנה even according to the רבנן who do not maintain עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה.****

SUMMARY It is preferable to establish a משנה according to the רבים, rather than establish it according to יחיד, even though he is accepted להלכה.

THINKING IT OVER Can we differentiate between the case in ב"מ (regarding the קטן) where שמואל rules עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה, and the case in our משנה where perhaps we do not say עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה?⁴

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview to the previous תוס' ד"ה במכרי. ² See רש"י ד"ה עשו. ³ The ברייתא there states that if one hires a worker in a field, the son of the worker may pick up the gleanings (לקט) which falls down. ר"י ruled that this rule applies even if the worker receives a share of the harvest (which makes him an owner). The גמרא there concludes that even though a קטן cannot be זוכה but in this case עשו את שאינו זוכה כזוכה, so he is gathering the לקט for himself, not for his father. ⁴ See תוספות ב"מ יב,א ד"ה ואמר.

ופוסק עמהן כשער הזול—And he contracts with them at the lower rate Overview¹ The ברייתא states that when he is מפריש תרו"מ on the account of the loan, he deducts the price of the תרו"מ according to the lower market rate.² תוספות clarifies what is meant with ופוסק כשער הזול.

כדמפרש³ דאף על גב דלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי – As the גמרא explains shortly that even though he was not פסק, it is considered as if he was פסק and he deducts it כשער הזול.

And there is no prohibition to do this on account of רבית, even though he is פוסק much less than the שער הזול.

SUMMARY The מלוה may contract for a very low price even less than the שער הזול.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why was it necessary for תוספות to write that דאע"ג דלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי, when the גמרא explicitly states so (as תוספות himself indicates)?!
2. When תוספות writes ואין בו משום רבית, is it referring only to the case where he is פוסק הרבה פחות משער הזול, or is this needed even for the case of אע"ג דלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי that nevertheless it is not רבית (or there is no need to tell us that it is not רבית since it is כשער הזול)?⁶

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview to תוס' ד"ה במכרי. ² Let assume that a bushel of wheat normally sells for ten dollars. However the שער הזול is eight dollars. If he is מפריש a bushel of תרומה he deducts only eight dollars from the loan not ten. The מלוה is gaining. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ It seems that תוספות is teaching us two הלכות; if he is not פוסק at all he can still deduct it כשער הזול (this is what the גמרא teaches), and if he is פוסק he can deduct even less than the שער הזול. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ See רש"י ד"ה ואין, מהר"ם שי"ף, פני יהושע.

הא קא משמע לן אף על גב דלא פסק כולי—This informs us that even though he did not contract, etc.

OVERVIEW The ברייתא, when it stated ופוסק עמהן כשער הזול, means that even though he was not פסק, it is as if he was פסק. Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא נמי פשיטא דבפרק איזהו נשך (שם דף עב,ב) – And if you will say; this too (that אע"פ שלא פסק כמי שפסק דמי) is obvious, for in פרק איזהו נשך – אמר רבי יהודה¹ שיכול לומר לו תן לי כזה או תן לי מעותי – ר"י rules that he can tell (the seller), ‘give it to me for this lower price, or give me back my money’ – תוספות answers:

And one can say; that there he is saying it to him (תן לי כזה או תן לי מעותי), when the price is low. However here, even if the מלוה was silent when the price was low until the price rose, nevertheless he can still receive it at the שער הזול even if לא פסק.

SUMMARY The novelty here is that he can receive the תרו"מ בשער הזול even after the price rose.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות is asking that according to ר' יהודה it is פשיטא.² However perhaps this ברייתא is according to the רבנן who argue with ר"י and maintains that you cannot say תן לי כזה או תן לי מעותי if you were not פוסק?!³

footnotes: ¹ The case there is where a buyer gave money to a seller for a certain item (the price to be determined at a later date). When the price is low the buyer can tell the seller, give me this item for this lower price, otherwise return my money back. Similarly here too the מלוה can say to the כהן, give me the תרומה for the lower price (which will be deducted from your loan), or give me back the money which I lent you. What is the חידוש in saying אע"פ שלא פסק וכו'?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ² See footnote # 1 (at the end). ³ See רש"ש and נחלת משה.

כיון דכי לית ליה לא יהיב ליה כולי—Since that when he does not have, he does not give him, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the reason why there is no איסור רבית (even though he is deducting the תרומה at a very low price¹) is because the מלוה is not assured of payment, for if his fields do not produce (so there is no תרו"מ), the כהן will not have to pay him back.²

תוספות responds to a difficulty: והא דאסר רב בפרדיסא³ באיזהו נשך (שם דף עג,א) אף על גב דאית ביה תיוהא⁴ – And this which רב forbade,⁵ in פרק איזהו נשך, the practice of פרדיסא, even though there can be spoilage in the grapes; why is our case different? תוספות responds:** הכא התירו משום תקנת⁶ כהן:** Nevertheless here they permitted it because of the benefit to the כהן.

SUMMARY The היתר of a possible loss to avoid the איסור רבית is not universal.

THINKING IT OVER Is תוספות question also according to פרש"י בד"ה ואין?⁷

footnotes: ¹ See תוס' ד"ה ופוסק [TIE footnote # 4]. ² The agreement was that the payment will be from תרו"מ. Therefore since he is not assured of payment we allow him to deduct the loan at the lower price ³ See רש"י there ד"ה פרדיסא who writes; לקנות יין מן הכרם בדמים פחותים כל פירות שנה זו בכך וכך, ולוקחין אחר שהן בוסר או סמדר אבל עדיין לא הגיעו לביכור. ⁴ We see that in the case of פרדיסא even though there is a possibility that they will lose their money (by תיוהא), nevertheless רב is אוסר, so why here is it permitted because there may be spoilage. ⁵ The buyers would pay a much lower price in advance, so they are receiving interest on their prepayment. ⁶ This way the כהן can receive a loan before the harvest season. However there by פרדיסא there is no pressing need. ⁷ See זיו הים (here) and ‘Thinking it over’ in תוס' ד"ה ופוסק (footnote # 6).

לא שנו אלא בעל הבית בכהן—It was not taught, only regarding the owner with the Kohain

OVERVIEW The ברייתא taught, regarding the rule of lending money to a כהן, etc. in order to be repaid from תרומה, etc., that if he wants to retract from this deal, he cannot. רב פפא commented that this means that the lender (the בעה"ב) cannot retract, but the כהן may retract. תוספות explains this ruling.

אפילו לרבנן דפליגי ארבי שמעון בפרק הזהב (שם דף מד,א) – This ruling of רב פפא applies even according to the רבנן who argue with ר"ש in פרק הזהב – ולית להו כל שהכסף בידו ידו על העליונה¹ – And they do not maintain that the upper hand is by the one who has the money, nevertheless – הכא לא גרע מכי לית ליה לא יהיב² – Here it is not worse than a situation where if there is no תרומה (the produce did not grow), the כהן does not have to give him other payments –

Or you may also say like רש"י explained that here by מלוה את הכהן, where the בעה"ב has no need to pull anything from the כהן, therefore the בעה"ב cannot retract.

SUMMARY The רבנן agree that only the כהן can retract but not the בעה"ב; either because it was agreed that דכי לית ליה לא יהיב ליה, or because there is no need for משיכה here.⁵

THINKING IT OVER The produce which is being given to the בעה"ב is a דבר שלא בא לעולם, so even if we maintain אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, nevertheless the rule is that before it is בא לעולם, one can retract, so why cannot the בעה"ב retract?⁶

footnotes: ¹ The משנה there states that if the buyer (of מטלטלין) paid the money but did not make a קנין משיכה (he did not take possession of the item), both sides can retract from the sale (since מטלטלין are acquired by משיכה but not through כסף). However ר"ש argues and maintains that once the money was paid, the seller (who has the money) has the upper hand, only he can retract from the sale, but not the buyer. In our case here, the כהן has the money (and the בעה"ב wants the פירות as payment), therefore according to ר"ש the כהן can retract from this deal (and say he wants to repay the loan in cash and not have the בעה"ב use his תרומה as payment כשער הזול), however the בעה"ב, who gave the loan and does not have the cash, cannot retract (and say I don’t want to deduct the תרומה for payment but I would like to be paid in cash), but rather he must keep the agreement. However according to the רבנן, who maintain that both the buyer and the seller can retract, why is it that here only the כהן can retract, but not the בעה"ב. ² The understanding was that if there will be no crops, the כהן is not obligated to pay back the בעה"ב at all, so certainly the בעה"ב cannot retract and say, ‘I want my payment in cash’. ³ בד"ה בעל. ⁴ In the case of the sale (in ב"מ) where the buyer is supposed to make a משיכה in the פירות, which he is buying, and he did not make the משיכה yet, therefore he too can retract. However here, where the בעה"ב is not taking something from the רשות of the כהן, he is merely withholding the תרומה, therefore he cannot retract, because he is not lacking any further action; he completed the transaction by lending money to the כהן. ⁵ See נחלת משה on the גמרא ד"ה לא שנו, for a detailed explanation of שיטות רש"י ותוס'. ⁶ See חידושי הרשב"א.