אלא על הקרקע—Only on land

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה which states that a פרוסבול is written only if the borrower has land (real estate). תוספות discusses the reason for this qualification.

משום דמלתא דשכיחא היא¹ שמלוה למי שיש לו קרקע – Because this is something common that one lends money to someone who owns land; it is common – לפי שאין יכול לכלותו ועומדת בפניו² – Since the borrower cannot destroy it and it exists before him – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ואף על גב דעציץ נקוב יכול לכלותו³ לא פלוג רבנן במקרקעי – And even though a perforated flowerpot can be destroyed, nevertheless the רבנן did not differentiate between different types of קרקע, but rather ruled that all קרקע including an עציץ is fit for writing a פרוסבול. תוספות responds to an additional difficulty: והא דכתבינן אקרקע כל שהוא⁴ פירש בקונטרס משום דראוי לגבות בו כל החוב⁵ – And regarding that which we write a פרוסבול even if the לוה owns a miniscule property, so רש"י explains that it is valid since it is possible to collect the entire debt even from a קרקע כל שהוא – כמעשה דקטינא דאביי⁶ – Like the story of the small field with אביי. תוספות offers an alternate explanation: ורבינו שמואל פירש משום דקרקע כל שהוא שוה כל החוב דאין אונאה לקרקעות⁷ – And the רש(ב"ם) explained it is a valid פרוסבול, since a קרקע כל שהוא is worth the entire amount of the loan for there is no law of אונאה by קרקע– תוספות asks on פירוש הרשב"ם: וקשה דהא אמרינן (כתובות דף ק,ב) דביטול מקח יש להם עד פלגא:⁸ And this explanation is difficult, for the גמרא states in מסכת כתובות that there is ביטול מקח for קרקע up to half.

SUMMARY A person usually lends only if his loan is guaranteed by the קרקע which is owned by the לוה, therefore a פרוסבול is written only in such as case. We write for an עציץ נקוב because of לא פלוג. If the קרקע is not worth the entire loan we write a פרוסבול either because it is possible to collect the entire loan (רש"י) or because אין אונאה לקרקעות (רשב"ם), [even though there is אונאה for more than half].

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did not תוספות answer that we write a פרוסבול on קרקע כל שהוא because לא פלוג רבנן במקרקעי (just as תוספות answered regarding an עציץ)?!⁹
2. Can we write a פרוסבול for a מלוה ע"פ (where the לוה has sufficient קרקע)?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה אלא (who gives this explanation adding) that the רבנן made their תקנות only by a מלתא דשכיחא, so if the לוה has no קרקע it is unusual that the מלוה will lend him (since he is not sure he will be repaid) therefore there is no תקנת פרוסבול if the לוה has no קרקע. ² The מלוה will lend money because he is assured of the loan being repaid (he has a lien on the property). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ It should be considered a מלתא דלא שכיחא for the מלוה will usually not lend for an עציץ נקוב which can be destroyed (and nevertheless the גמרא states that we write a פרוסבול on a עציץ נקוב). ⁴ This should also be considered a מלתא דלא שכיחא for the מלוה will usually require that the לוה has קרקע at least equal to the amount of the loan. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ Therefore it is considered (like) a מלתא דשכיחא. ⁶ See כתובות צא,ב where a לוה died owing a hundred זוז to a מלוה and he left over a small field worth fifty זוז. The מלוה came and took the field. The יתומים went and paid the מלוה fifty זוז and took back the field. The מלוה returned and collected the field again for the remaining fifty זוז that he was still owed. אביי ruled in favor of the מלוה (with certain qualifications, עיי"ש). It is evident that it is possible to collect an entire debt even with less property. ⁷ The rule (by מטלטלין) is that if one overcharges (or undercharges) for less than a sixth (of the correct value) the sale is valid as is; if the discrepancy was exactly a sixth (he sold something worth six זוז for seven), the sale is valid but the discrepancy (the אונאה) must be returned (one זוז); if however the אונאה was for more than a sixth (he charges five for something which is worth four) the deal is voided and the merchandise and the monies go back to the seller and buyer respectively. However by קרקע even if the אונאה was more than a sixth the deal is valid. Therefore even though the actual value of this קרקע is less than the loan, nevertheless since it can be sold for a much higher price (without incurring the penalty of אונאה) it is considered to be worth more. ⁸ If the אונאה by קרקע was more than half (he sold land which is worth one hundred זוזים for more than two hundred זוזים) the sale is voided. The question is (how) can we write a פרוסבול if the קרקע is worth less than half the amount of the loan?! ⁹ See footnote # 4 and נמוקי יוסף. ¹⁰ See (footnote # 2 and) נח"מ.

מדרבי נתן—On account of רבי נתן

OVERVIEW רבי נתן rules that if שמעון owes ראובן money and לוי owes שמעון money, ראובן can collect his debt directly from לוי, and לוי cannot claim that you have no business with me. תוספות rules according to ר"נ.

הלכה כרבי נתן דרבא¹ בפרק כל שעה (פסחים לא,א) לא מתוקמא מלתיה אלא כרבי נתן² – The ruling is according to ר' נתן for רבא in פרק כל שעה could not establish his ruling only according to ר"נ; this is – גבי פלוגתא דלמפרע הוא גובה דאביי ורבא וקיימא לן כרבא בר מיע"ל קג"ם³ – Regarding the dispute between אביי ורבא whether a lender collects his debt retroactively or not, and we have established that the rule is like רבא whenever he argues with אביי except for the six disputes known as יע"ל קג"ם.⁴

And initially the ר"ת wanted to say that the הלכה is not like ר"נ, and then he retracted (and agreed that the הלכה is כר"נ),⁶ and there is no need to expound on this issue here.

SUMMARY We rule like ר"נ.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות proves that the הלכה is כר"נ from the גמרא in פסחים.⁷ Why could not תוספות prove that the הלכה is כר"נ from our גמרא which states that ת"ר אין לו קרקע וכו' that כותבין עליו פרוסבול מדר"נ and no one argues on this דין? This would seem to be a more conclusive proof!⁸

footnotes: ¹ רבא maintains that when a מלוה collects his debt from the לוה it is considered as if it came into the possession of the מלוה (only) at the time when he actually collected it (not like אביי who maintains למפרע הוא גובה that if the מלוה collected something from the לוה it is considered as if the מלוה owned it from the time of the loan [so according to אביי if the מלוה sold or was מקדיש this item before he eventually collected it from the לוה, the מכירה and הקדש are effective, and רבא disagrees]). ² The גמרא there cites a ברייתא which states if ראובן sold a field to שמעון with אחריות (if the field should be taken away from שמעון for any reason ראובן will reimburse שמעון), however שמעון did not pay for the field and ראובן considered it a loan that שמעון owes ראובן. After ראובן died (and שמעון still did not pay his loan) the מלוה of ראובן came to collect the field from שמעון (which was משעובד to his loan) and שמעון gave this מלוה the money which he owed to ראובן (and kept the field). The ברייתא rules that the יתומים can claim that you had no right to give the money to the מלוה for the money is מטלטלין and they are not משועבד to the מלוה, and as far as your right to אחריות goes, there is no אחריות because our father ראובן left us no קרקע only מטלטלין which are not משועבד to your אחריות, therefore you still owe us the money for the field (which was made into a loan). רבא stated that שמעון can give them the קרקע back as payment for their loan (from ראובן) and then he can claim it back since he bought his field באחריות. The גמרא asks if we assume למפרע הוא גובה this is understood since it is considered as if ראובן received this field at the time of the sale/loan and the יתומים inherited קרקע from which שמעון can demand his אחריות, if however מכאן ולהבא הוא גובה, it is as if the יתומים just bought קרקע and there is no שעבוד on this קרקע. The גמרא answered that according to רבי נתן it is understood for שמעון owes the money (to ראובן) and שמעון is owed money (by ראובן for the אחריות), therefore he can retain the field, עיי"ש. ³ This acronym stands forיאוש שלא מדעת, עד זומם למפרע הוא נפסל, לחי העומד מאיליו, קדושין שלא נמסרו לביאה, גלוי דעתא בגיטא, מומר אוכל נבילות להכעיס. In these six disputes (only) the הלכה is like אביי against רבא. ⁴ Since in order to justify רבא we need the ruling of ר"נ this proves that we follow the ruling of ר"נ. ⁵ See תוספות הרא"ש for the reason. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ See footnote # 6. ⁸ See תפא"י.

שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים אינו משמט—A note in which there is a guarantee of assets is not released

OVERVIEW ר' יוחנן and ר"ל ruled that if the לוה subjected his real estate assets to subordinate the loan, שביעית cannot be משמט this loan. The reason is that since the loan is secured (even if the לוה sells his assets, the מלוה can still collect them), it is considered as if the loan is already paid up.¹

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: הא דאמרינן לעיל בפרק ב' (דף יח,א) דאונס² קנס³ ופיתוי⁴ שזקפן במלוה⁵ משמטין⁶ – That which the ברייתא taught us previously in the second פרק that אונס, קנס and פיתוי, which were converted into a loan, are משמט – ומפרש דהיינו משעת העמדה בדין⁷ – And the ברייתא there explained that it is considered זקפן במלוה from the time that this case was settled in court, and the accused was found guilty and was required to pay the קנס. This concludes the citation of the ברייתא. תוספות asks – אף על גב דמשעמד בדין גבי ממשעבדי⁸ כדמוכח בכמה דוכתי – Even though once it was עמד בדין the creditor can collect even from משעבדי as is evident in many places – וכן כתובה משתפגום ותזקוף משמטת אף על גב דגבי ממשעבדי⁹ – And similarly by כתובה the rule is that it is משמטת after she received partial payment and/or¹⁰ she converted it [the remainder] into a loan, even though that כתובה may be collected from משעבדי – תוספות replies that even though they (קנסים and כתובה) are גבי ממשעבדי – מכל מקום אלים טפי כשמפורש שיעבוד בשטר:¹¹ Nevertheless the שעבוד is stronger when the שעבוד is written explicitly in the שטר.

SUMMARY There is a difference whether a debt can be collected from משעבדי implicitly (where שביעית is משמט) or if it can collect ממשעבדי explicitly (where שביעית is not משמט).

THINKING IT OVER According to the הו"א of תוספות (that there is no difference whether the שעבוד is explicit or not) why did not תוספות ask that every שטר (even without אחריות) should not be משמט for since we maintain אחריות טעות סופר, every שטר is גבי ממשעבדי?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה אינו. ² אונס refers to the fifty שקלים that one must pay if he forced himself on a נערה בתולה. ³ קנס refers to the מאה כסף that one who is מוציא שם רע on his wife (that she was מזנה during אירוסין) must pay. ⁴ פיתוי refers to the fifty שקלים one must pay if he enticed a נערה בתולה into a relationship. ⁵ The מאנס (or מפתה ומוציא ש"ר) did not have the money to pay and he owed it as a loan. ⁶ If שביעית comes and the various קנסים were not paid, it is not owed any more, for שביעית is משמט them. ⁷ If שביעית occurred after the העמדה בדין and the קנס was not paid, he is exempt from paying it. ⁸ Once it was עמד בדין there is public knowledge that the accused owes money, therefore they can/should be careful when buying property from him, knowing full well that this property is attached to a debt. ⁹ The question is, in all these cases mentioned it is גבי ממשעבדי, so why is שביעית משמטת? We learnt here (according to ר"י ור"ל) that a שטר שיש בו אחריות there is no שמיטה (because it is גובה ממשעבדי); what is the difference between a שטר שיש בו אחריות and these cases mentioned here?! ¹⁰ According to רב we require תפגום and תזקוף for שביעית to be משמט, while according to שמואל either one is sufficient for שביעית to be משמט. ¹¹ By the קנסים since there is no document that clearly states that this debt can be collected from משעבדי, therefore it is not considered כגבוי that שביעית should not be משמט. Regarding the כתובה however, even though אחריות נכסים is mentioned in the כתובה, nevertheless since she was פוגמת and/or זקפן במלוה it is like a new loan where אחריות נכסים is not mentioned explicitly and she collects ממשעבדי only because of העמדה בדין (see תפא"י). ¹² See אמ"ה # 238.

דתפיס ליה—That he seized it

OVERVIEW רבא explained the reason why המלוה על המשכון there is no השמטת כספים, because the מלוה is תופס the משכון. Our תוספות explains what is meant by דתפיס ליה.

פירוש¹ בתורת משכון ודרשינן בספרי² ולא של אחיך בידך:³ The explanation of the phrase דתפיס ליה is that he is seizing it as lawful collateral, and the ספרי makes the דרשה that שמיטה does not apply when your brother’s debt is in your hand, as is the case here where he is holding a משכון.****

SUMMARY שביעית is not משמט המלוה על המשכון because it is של אחיך בידך.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות that the reason why by המלוה על המשכון there is no שמיטה is because it is של אחיך בידך, what does the גמרא ask from הלוהו ודר בחצרו; there it is not של אחיך בידך since the קרקע is always in the רשות of the rightful owner?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ The word פירוש in תוספות (usually) indicates that he is negating a different explanation. Seemingly here תוספת is negating פירש"י בד"ה דתפיס, where רש"י states that the מלוה is not pressing the לוה for the loan. תוספות disagrees for even if the מלוה has a משכון he is still pressing the לוה for the money. In addition the rule of המלוה על המשכון אין שביעית משמטת is even when the משכון is worth less than the loan, in which case the מלוה is certainly תובע the loan. ² The פסוק in דברים (ראה) טו,ג states ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך תשמט ידך, from this the ספרי derives that שמיטה is applicable to whatever is by אחיך (the לוה); however if it is in the hand of the מלוה, then שביעית is not משמט (ולא של אחיך בידך). ³ As long as the מלוה has in his (legal) possession any article from the לוה this פסוק teaches us that שביעית is not משמט. ⁴ See בית יהודה.

אלא מעתה הלוהו ודר בחצרו—But now if he lent him and lived in his חצר

OVERVIEW רבא explained that the reason if one is מלוה על המשכון the rule is that אין שביעית משמט is because דתפס ליה (he seized the משכון). אביי asked רבא according to you the same rule should apply to one who lent his friend money and lived in his חצר, that שביעית should not be משמט since תפיס ליה. Our תוספות explains what אביי meant with הלוהו ודר בחצרו.

אין לפרש דפריך מהלוהו שלא על חצרו¹ – We cannot interpret that אביי was asking from a case where he lent him the money, but did not offer his חצר as collateral, but rather the מלוה was living in the חצר (from before); this cannot be the case אביי was referring to – תוספות proves that אביי was not discussing a case of הלוהו שלא על חצרו – מדלא נקט הלוהו ויש לו משכון בידו² – Since אביי did not mention ³הלוהו ויש לו משכון בידו as the challenging case, instead of הלוהו ודר בחצרו – אלא פריך הלוהו על חצירו ודר בחצירו – Rather אביי asked from a case where he lent him the money with the חצר as collateral and he dwelt in that חצר, where it is similar to המלוה על המשכון – דאפילו הכי משמט כדמוכח בפרק איזהו נשך (בבא מציעא דף סז,ב) – And nevertheless it is משמט as is evident in פרק איזהו נשך – דאמרינן האי משכנתא⁴ באתרא דמסלקי⁵ שביעית משמטת: Where the גמרא states, ‘this משכון of קרקע in a place where the לוה can remove the מלוה from the field by paying the debt, this type of loan שביעית is משמטת’.⁶

SUMMARY When one offers a field as a משכון with recourse, שביעית is משמט (as opposed to a משכון of מטלטלין).

THINKING IT OVER

1. How are we to understand the answer of רבא that 'שאני משכון וכו''⁷ (according to תוספות that חצרו is also a משכון)?⁸
2. Is this תוספות more readily understood⁹ according to פירש"י in דתפס ליה (that he is not demanding payment) or according to פירוש תוספות in דתפס ליה (that ולא של אחיך בידך)?

footnotes: ¹ The difficulty with this interpretation is that we cannot compare the case of מלוה על המשכון where the לוה granted the מלוה this משכון (and therefore it is not משמט since it is של אחיך בידך) to the case of הלוהו ודר בחצרו where the לוה did not give the מלוה the חצר as a משכון (and therefore it is משמט since it is not של אחיך בידך). See ‘Thinking it over’ #2. ² If אביי was discussing a case of הלוהו שלא על חצרו, why was it necessary for אביי to mention a case of קרקע when he could have asked the same question regarding מטלטלין (as is the case of המלוה על המשכון), that if the מלוה was already in the possession of an article of the לוה prior to the loan (not a משכון), it should not be משמט. Since אביי did not present his question in this manner it is understood that this is no question for we cannot compare a case of a משכון to a case where the מלוה was merely in possession of the sלוה' article (see footnote # 1). ³ According to the מהרש"א this is referring to a case where the מלוה is in possession of a משכון from this לוה for a different debt; however the value of that משכון is greater than that other debt. We are discussing whether שביעית is משמט the loan without the משכון ⁴ A משכנתא refers to a case where the מלוה lends money and the לוה provides him with a field as a guarantee. There are different types of משכנתא; in some of them the מלוה eats the פירות for the duration of the loan. ⁵ The לוה can pay the מלוה the remaining (pro-rated) debt and remove the מלוה from his field. Then שביעית is משמטת. However, in a place where לא מסלקי meaning that the מלוה lends the לוה money and in return the מלוה gets the use of the field for a predetermined amount of years. If half the years passed the לוה cannot come and pay back half the loan and demand his land back. It remains by the מלוה for the entire time, even if the time included a שביעית year. ⁶ אביי basically asked what is the difference between a משכון of מטלטלין (where it is not משמט) and a משכון of קרקע (where it is משמט). [רבא answered that the מלוה is קונה a משכון of מטלטלין (we derive this from ר' יצחק) but he is not קונה the משכון of קרקע (the פסוק of ר' יצחק from where we derive that בע"ח קונה משכון is discussing (only) מטלטלין. (See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.)] ⁷ See footnote # 6. ⁸ See תפא"י. ⁹ See footnote # 1.

שאני משכון דקני ליה מדרבי יצחק—A משכון is different for he acquires it on account of רבי יצחק

OVERVIEW רבא explained the reason המלוה על המשכון אין שביעית משמטת is because the מלוה acquires the משכון, as ר"י taught. The ruling of ר"י is (mainly) regarding the responsibility of the מלוה for the משכון, if the משכון was lost or stolen the מלוה is liable for it (it reduces or nullifies the debt). There are two types of משכונות, one is משכנו בשעת הלואתו, the מלוה requested the משכון as collateral at the time of the loan,¹ but he had no intention of keeping the משכון as payment.² There is also משכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו, that when the debt was due and the לוה did not pay, the מלוה then collected a משכון which he may use as a payment for his loan.³

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא דרבי יצחק שלא⁴ בשעת הלואתו⁵ – And if you will say, but ר"י is discussing a משכון שלא בשעת הלואתו – כדאמרינן בהאומנים (בבא מציעא פב,א) ובשלהי פרק הדיינין (שבועות מד,א) – As the גמרא states in פרק האומנים and in the end of פרק הדיינין – והכא המלוה על המשכון קתני דמשמע בשעת הלואתו – But here the ברייתא states המלוה על המשכון which indicates that the משכון was taken בשעת הלואתו – כדאמרינן התם⁶ והא אידי ואידי⁷ הלוהו על המשכון קתני – As the גמרא states there, ‘but here and there it states הלוהו על המשכון’, which indicates that it was בשעת הלואה – תוספות rejects a possible solution: ואין סברא לחלק בין המלוה להלוהו⁸ – And it is not logical to distinguish between המלוה על המשכון (which may mean שלא בשעת הלואה) and הלוהו על המשכון (which means בשעת הלואה). תוספות argues that even if we assume that המלוה על המשכון means שלא בשעת הלואתו, nevertheless there is still a difficulty: ועוד בפרק הזהב (בבא מציעא דף מח,ב) ובפרק הדיינין (שבועות מד,א) – And furthermore from the גמרות in פרק הזהב and in פרק הדיינין – משמע נמי דאפילו בשעת הלואתו אינו משמט גבי מלוה על המשכון ואינו שוה אלא פלגא – It also seems that even משכנו בשעת הלואתו is not משמט. This is regarding a case where one was מלוה על המשכון and the משכון was only worth half of the loan – דקאמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאינו משמט פירוש מה שכנגד המשכון – Where רשב"ג ruled that שביעית is not משמט; meaning it is not משמט the loan which is equal to the value of the משכון – ורבי יהודה הנשיא סבר דמשמט משום דלא תפיס ליה אלא לזכרון דברים בעלמא⁹ – And ר"י הנשיא maintains that it is משמט, because he seized the משכון only that the לוה should merely remember that he owes a loan. This concludes the citation – והיינו על כרחך במשכון בשעת הלוואתו דשלא בשעת הלוואתו מאי דמשכן שקיל לגוביינא – And this means perforce that the גמרא there was discussing a משכון בשעת הלואתו, for if it was a משכון שלא בשעת הלואתו, whatever the מלוה took it was for collection,¹⁰ not for a זכרון דברים בעלמא as ר"י stated – ואפילו הכי אם היה שוה המשכון כנגד ההלואה אינו משמט – And nevertheless (even though it is a משכון בשעת הלואתו) if the משכון would be worth the amount of the loan it would not be משמט. This proves that we maintain that even a משכון בשעת הלואה is not משמט; the question remains, but ר"י was only discussing a משכון שלא בשעת הלואה. In summation: The rule of ר"י that בע"ח קונה משכון is only by משכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו, but not by משכנו בשעת הלואתו, nevertheless it appears that המלוה על המשכון even בשעת הלואתו is not משמט; how can רבא say the reason is because of ר"י. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמסתבר ליה להש"ס מאחר דקני ליה מדרבי יצחק שלא בשעת הלוואתו – And one can say; that it appears logical to the גמרא, that since שלא בשעת הלוואתו the מלוה acquires the משכון (in the sense that he is liable for it) on account of the ruling of ר"י, therefore – אלים נמי שיעבודיה בשעת הלואה דלא משמט דקרינן ביה ולא של אחיך בידך¹¹ – The lien which the מלוה has on this משכון even בשעת הלואה is also sufficiently powerful that it is not משמט for we can apply to it the ruling of ולא של אחיך בידך תוספות finds a corollary to this concept: וכן צריך לפרש בפרק כל שעה (פסחים לא,ב) דמייתי דרבי יצחק – And similarly it is necessary to explain the גמרא in פרק כל שעה in the same manner, where the גמרא cited ר"י, this is – גבי ישראל שהלוה לעובד כוכבים על חמצו¹² דאלים שיעבודיה אפילו בשעת הלוואתו – Regarding a ישראל who lent money to a gentile for his חמץ (as security), we need to say that the שיעבוד the ישראל has on this חמץ which he took as a משכן even בשעת הלוואתו is strong enough – דמיקרי שלך לעבור בבל יראה הואיל שלא בשעת הלוואה קני לגמרי – That this חמץ is called שלך (it is yours) that the ישראל transgresses the prohibition of בל יראה, since if he took this חמץ שלא בשעת הלוואה the ישראל would acquire it completely – דאפילו מקבל פקדון מעובדי כוכבים אם מקבל עליה אחריות מחייב עליה בבל יראה¹³ – For if even one accepts a deposit of חמץ from a עכו"ם, the rule is that if the ישראל accepted upon himself responsibility, he is liable for בל יראה on this חמץ – תוספות continues in the reverse: ועובד כוכבים שהלוה לישראל על חמצו¹⁴ – And regarding a gentile who lent money to a ישראל for his חמץ as a security – אי הוה קני עובד כוכבים מישראל לא מחייב ישראל¹⁵ אפילו משכנו בשעת הלוואה – If the ruling would be that an עכו"ם is קונה a משכון from a ישראל, the ישראל would not be חייב for בל יראה even if the עכו"ם took the משכון בשעת הלואה – משום דאלים שיעבודיה דלא חשיב מצוי ביד ישראל¹⁶ – Because since the שיעבוד of the עכו"ם on the חמץ is strong, it is not considered that the חמץ is ‘accessible’ in the possession of the ישראל – תוספות explains from where we derive this requirement of מצוי for בל יראה: דדרשינן לא ימצא¹⁷ מי שמצוי בידו למעוטי ייחד לו בית¹⁸ – For we interpret the פסוק of לא ימצא to mean something which is found in his hand, to exclude the case of ייחד לו בית אפילו קיבל עליו אחריות¹⁹ כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דפסחים (דף ו,א)²⁰ – Even if the ישראל accepted upon himself the responsibility, as תוספות states in the first פרק of מסכת פסחים – In summation; since משכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו the מלוה acquires the משכון with a קנין גמור (to be liable for גניבה ואבידה), therefore even if משכנו בשעת הלואתו it is still אלים שיעבודו regarding שביעית that it is not משמט and regarding חמץ that he is עובר on בל יראה. תוספות mentions a case where we do not say אלים שיעבודו by משכנו בשעת הלואה: ומיהו בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף ח,ב) גבי קדשה במשכון אחרים דמקודשת²¹ – However in the first פרק of מסכת קידושין regarding the case where a man was מקדש a woman with a משכון, which the man held for a loan he made to another, the rule is that she is מקודשת – ומייתי מדרבי יצחק צריך לומר דדוקא במשכנו שלא בשעת הלוואתו מקודשת – And the גמרא cites ר"י (that בע"ח קונה משכון), there it is necessary to say that she is מקודשת only where it was משכנו שלא בשעת הלוואתו – דבפרק האומנין (בבא מציעא פב,א) משמע דלא מהני דרבי יצחק להתחייב באונסין – For in פרק האומנין it seems from the גמרא that the ruling of ר"י (that בע"ח קונה משכון) is not sufficient that the בע"ח should be liable for אונסין – ולא חשיב אלא כשומר שכר אלמא לא חשיב כשלו לגמרי²² – And the בע"ח is only considered like a paid watchman (and he is חייב only for גניבה ואבידה), it is evident that the משכון is not considered as if it is totally his – אם כן מאיזה טעם נחשב כשומר שכר – If so (that it is not שלו לגמרי), for what reason is he considered a ש"ש – אם לא משום דנהנה דקני ליה לקנות בו את האשה וקרקעות או בחליפין – If not for the fact that he derives a benefit from the משכון, that he acquired it to buy with the משכון either a woman or properties or he can use it for חליפין – ואם כן בשעת הלוואתו אינו יכול לקדש בו את האשה²³: And if indeed this is so, then he cannot be מקדש an אשה with a משכון בשעת הלוואתו

SUMMARY Since בע"ח קונה משכון שלא בשעת הלואותו with a קנין גמור to be liable for גניבה ואבידה, therefore even בשעת הלואתו it is considered sufficiently שלו to be משמט by שביעית and to be חייב for ב"י by הלוה לעכו"ם על חמצו. However by קידושין she is מקודשת only if it was משכנו שלא בשעת הלוואתו.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly the reason why המקדש במשכון (דאחרים) מקודשת is because he is giving her something of value (that she can use this משכון to collect from the לוה)²⁴. What difference is there whether it is בשעת הלואתו or שלא בשעת הלואתו, it either case the משכון has a value for the woman, for she will collect the loan through it?!²⁵

footnotes: ¹ If indeed the לוה will not pay the loan, the מלוה will bring this משכון to בי"ד and בי"ד will assess its value and give the מלוה the value of his loan. ² This type of משכון is not considered as being acquired by the מלוה, since he has no intention of keeping it. ³ This type of משכון can be considered as being acquired by the מלוה, since he intends to keep it if the לוה will not pay within a specified time. This משכון is already assessed by בי"ד that the מלוה can keep it. ⁴ The פרשה where it states ולך תהיה צדקה (דברים [תצא] כד,י-יג), discusses a case where a מלוה was not paid and is taking a משכון from the לוה after the הלואה (which he will use as payment, if the loan is not repaid [within thirty days]). ⁵ Only then is the מלוה קונה the משכון and חייב באחריותה, however בשעת הלואה the בע"ח is not קונה the משכון, and he is not חייב if it is lost or stolen. ⁶ ב"מ (סוף) פא,ב. The גמרא was saying that we cannot say that the משנה which says הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר is discussing שלא בשעת הלואה and the ברייתא where ר"א exempts the מלוה from paying is discussing בשעת הלואה; we cannot make this distinction because in both places it states הלוהו על המשכון (meaning בשעת הלואה). ⁷ In our texts the ברייתא states המלוה על המשכון; see continuation of תוספות. See נח"מ. ⁸ If we would make this distinction then there would be no difficulty, for in our משנה it states המלוה על המשכון and it could mean שלא בשעת הלואה. However תוספות disregards this suggestion. ⁹ It could not have been a ‘serious’ משכון since it was only worth half of the loan. ¹⁰ The reason he took only half is because that is all that there was available. ¹¹ Just like a משכון שלא בשעת הלואה is considered as belonging to the מלוה, even though it does not yet belong to the מלוה, for the לוה can still pay back the loan and redeem this משכון, nevertheless since eventually it is possible/likely that the מלוה will receive it, therefore we consider it his as of now. Similarly by a משכון בשעת הלואה, even though the מלוה does not expect to take it as payment, nevertheless since there is the possibility that the לוה will not pay, and the מלוה will take it as payment, therefore it is considered as if the מלוה has a certain ‘right’ in it. See נח"מ. ¹² The ruling is that the ישראל is עובר on בל יראה. ¹³ Then certainly if one receives the חמץ as a משכון it is considered more ‘his’ than merely holding a פקדון באחריות for an עכו"ם. A משכון (even בשעת הלואה) belongs more to the מלוה than a פקדון belongs to the שומר (even with אחריות). The פקדון must be returned to the owner; there is no way how it can belong to the שומר. However regarding a משכון (even בשעת הלואה), the מלוה can withhold it until paid and it can belong to the מלוה eventually if the לוה does not pay. [Alternately תוספות is proving that we cannot say the reason that the ישראל (who lent the עכו"ם על חמצו) is חייב for ב"י is because he was מקבל אחריות, for then there is no need for הלוה על חמצו even by a regular פקדון he is עובר בב"י.] ¹⁴ The rule is that the ישראל is עובר on בל יראה, because there is no concept of בע"ח קונה משכון regarding an עכו"ם. However, as תוספות continues, if the rule would have been that an עכו"ם is קונה משכון then the ישראל would not be עובר on בל יראה. The question that תוספות may be addressing is why do we say that the ישראל is עובר on ב"י because there is no קנין לעכו"ם, even if there was a קנין לעכו"ם, the ישראל should still be עובר ב"י since it is משכנו בשעת הלואה where no one is קונה משכון. תוספות answers that if the עכו"ם would be קונה שלא בשעת הלואה then the ישראל would be פטור even בשעת הלואה. ¹⁵ [It is possible that תוספות mentions this case of עכו"ם שהלוה לישראל, because in the previous case of ישראל שהלוה לעכו"ם, we only see that אלים שיעבודו of בשעת הלואה goes לחומרא that the ישראל is עובר בל יראה (perhaps only מדרבנן), however by שמיטה we say אלים שיעבודו even לקולא that it is not משמט, therefore תוספות shows that by חמץ also it would have been possible to say אלים שיעבודו even לקולא.] ¹⁶ The ישראל has no ‘access’ to this חמץ (even though legally it is his), since the עכו"ם is holding it for a משכון. ¹⁷ שמות (בא) יב,יט. ¹⁸ The case there is where the נכרי deposited his חמץ by a ישראל; if the ישראל designated a place (בית) for the חמץ, the ישראל is not obligated to get rid of this חמץ. ¹⁹ We see that even if the ישראל accepted אחריות he is not עובר ב"י if ייחד לו בית, because it is not accessible to him (he was ייחד לו בית); if the עכו"ם has the חמץ of a ישראל in his possession as a משכון, it is certainly not accessible to the ישראל. ²⁰ See תוספות there ד"ה יחד. If however the ישראל was not ייחד לו בית and he accepted אחריות he would be עובר on ב"י as mentioned previously in this תוספות (footnote # 13). ²¹ It is worth money to her, for now she can withhold this משכון until the loan is paid to her. See ‘Thinking it over’. ²² If it would be שלו לגמרי he would be חייב for אונסין (just as the owner suffers the loss [even] when it is lost באונס). ²³ If he could be מקדש an אשה with a משכון בשעת הלוואתו (where he is not considered a ש"ש and פטור from גניבה ואבידה), then what extra benefit does he have שלא בשעת הלוואתו that on account of it you consider him to be a ש"ש and חייב בגניבה ואבידה. ²⁴ See footnote # 21. ²⁵ See תוספות קידושין ח,ב ד"ה משכון, that she is מקדושת even if it was משכנו בשעת הלוואתו.