# dafyomi

lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Since he accepted the loss if the price
          declines, he is prone to gain or lose, so it is
          permitted.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>BENEFIT FROM THE BORROWER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven lent money to Shimon, he may not
          dwell in Shimon's yard for free, nor rent from Shimon for
          less than the norm, for this is Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Gemara - Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> Even though
          one who lives in Ploni's yard without Ploni's knowledge
          need not pay him, if he lent Ploni money, he must pay
          him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the Mishnah discusses
          only a yard normally rented out and a man who normally
          rents a place to stay, but if the yard is not normally
          rented out and the man does not normally rent a place to
          stay, it is permitted. Rav Yosef teaches that this is not
          so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> Even though if Reuven
          lives in Ploni's yard without Ploni's knowledge, Reuven
          need not pay him, if Ploni told him 'lend to me money and
          live in my yard', Reuven must pay him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Version #1 forbids living for free even if Ploni did
               not suggest the deal, and all the more so, if Ploni
               suggested it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Version #2 forbids living for free only if Ploni
               suggested the deal. If not, it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Since Ploni never suggested it, Reuven did
               not lend in order to live in his yard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	People of Rav Yosef bar Chama's household would take
          slaves (of people who owed to them money) and work with
          them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava (his son):</font></b> Why do you do this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> Rav Nachman taught that a slave is not
               worth the food he eats. (I feed them when I use
               them. I benefit the owners!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Rav Nachman said that only about his own slave
               Dari, who dances in bars to get drinks. Normal
               slaves work!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yosef:</font></b> I hold like Rav Daniel citing Rav, who
               said that if Reuven grabbed Shimon's slave and used
               the slave, he is exempt;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Shimon is happy that people use his
                    slaves!
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) MAY A BORROWER DO A FAVOR FOR HIS LENDER?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a person who lends money may not live rent-free in the courtyard of the debtor who owes him money. The Gemara concludes that this prohibition applies even when the debtor's courtyard is not the type of courtyard that he would otherwise rent out, and even when the creditor is not the type of person who would have to rent this courtyard (as he easily could find other courtyards to stay in). Such a case is called 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser' -- 'This one (the creditor) benefits and this one (the debtor) loses nothing.' Nevertheless, such an arrangement is prohibited because it looks like Ribis.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> asks that if the Gemara prohibits a creditor from benefiting from the debtor even in a manner of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser,' why is it the accepted custom to permit the creditor to borrow tools and utensils from the debtor during the period of the loan?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that a creditor is not prohibited from borrowing items from the debtor, even though it is a case of 'Zeh Neheneh v'Zeh Lo Chaser' like the case in which the creditor lives in the courtyard of the debtor, for the following reason. When the creditor lives in the courtyard of the borrower, it looks improper; it is not the normal practice that one person lives in another person's yard, rent-free. Homeowners usually do not give permission for that sort of thing, even if it costs them nothing. It therefore gives the appearance of Ribis. In contrast, people normally <i>do</i> lend things to others, regardless of whether or not they borrowed money from the person who wants to use their objects. Therefore, as long as the debtor would normally lend this item to the creditor even if he had not borrowed money from him, he is allowed to lend it to him while he owes him the loan.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SEFER TORAS RIBIS</b> (ch. 4) quotes the <b>SHACH</b> who writes that even if a person normally lets someone borrow his items without explicit permission, a creditor may not exercise this right when he has loaned money to his friend. This is because he likely will borrow the debtor's item with an extra sense of confidence due to the loan which he has given to him, and this appears like Ribis.
</p><p>
The Toras Ribis adds a number of guidelines for the permitted way in which a creditor may benefit from his debtor while the loan is outstanding. For example, a creditor may use the debtor's car if he would normally do so even when no loan is outstanding, and he is not required to pay for the use of the car or for the fuel if he normally would not do so. <b>RAV YISROEL REISMAN</b> (in 'The Laws of Ribis,' Mesorah Publications, 1995) points out that this may not always be permitted. Most Acharonim follow the view of the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 166), <b>BACH</b> (ibid.), and others who rule that this leniency applies only to borrowing things in private, not in public. One may not borrow his debtor's items in public, since it gives the impression of Ribis. Accordingly, if the car is marked with the borrower's name or business, his creditor would not be allowed to borrow it. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BENEFIT FROM THE BORROWER (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rava:</font></b> Since you take slaves of people who owe you, this
          looks like Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> If Levi lived in Yehudah's
               field without Yehudah's knowledge, he is exempt, but
               if Yehudah owes him money, Levi must pay rent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Yosef bar Chama:</font></b> I retract.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW WE RETURN RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven owed Ribis to Shimon, and wheat was
          selling for four measures for a Zuz, and Reuven paid the
          debt with wheat, and gave five measures per Zuz, when we
          make Shimon return the Ribis (like R. Elazar holds), he
          need return only four measures per Zuz. The extra measure
          was just because Reuven sells cheaply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> He must return all five measures, because he
          received it for Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven owed four Zuzim of Ribis to Shimon,
          and he paid him by giving him a garment, Shimon need
          return only four Zuzim, for Reuven sold the garment to
          him for four Zuz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> He must return the garment, lest people say that
          he wears clothing of Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If Reuven owed 12 Zuzim of Ribis to Shimon, and
          he paid him by renting his yard to him for the 12 Zuz,
          even though his yard is normally rented for 10, we make
          Shimon return 12 Zuz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Shimon can say 'I agreed to
          accept it as 12 only because it came for nothing. If I
          must pay, I will pay only like everyone else pays!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Reuven can say 'you accepted the yard
          for 12.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A HIGHER PRICE FOR PAYING LATER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may charge more rental if the renter pays
          later, but one may not charge more in a sale if the buyer
          pays later.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reuven may set the rental for his yard to be 10
               Sela'im for the year if paid up front, or one Sela
               per month;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One may not set the price for his field to be 1000
               up front, or 1200 if paid after the harvest (when
               the buyer will have money).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the difference between rental
          and a sale?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rental is owed only at the
          end of the term. The real rental is one per month, just
          Reuven gives a discount for paying early. In a purchase,
          the buyer owes the money immediately (the real price is
          1000). Reuven charges extra for delaying payment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> We learn that rental is owed only at the end of
          the term from 'ki'Schir Shanah b'Shanah.' Rental for this
          year is paid in another (i.e. the beginning of the next)
          year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> ...Or 1200 if paid after the harvest, this is
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> Tarsha (to sell something for more than
          its value on condition to receive the money later) is
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah):</font></b> ... or 1200 if paid
          after the harvest, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> That is forbidden because he
          offered a lower price for paying immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> The Tarsha I do is permitted. (I sell beer in
          Tishrei, when it is cheap, and get paid in Nisan,
          according to the expensive price of Nisan.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> My beer does not spoil (I could wait
          until Nisan to sell it), and I do not need the money now.
          I do a favor to the buyer, to let him drink it early!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> Why do you view
          it from your perspective? From the buyer's perspective,
          he is paying more because he lacks money now!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chama):</font></b> The Tarsha I do is surely permitted. (I sell
          goods where they are cheap, according to the expensive
          price where the buyers take them to sell. I suffer any
          losses on the way. Essentially, they buy them only
          there.).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Chama):</font></b> The buyers profit from having the
          merchandise in my name. (Because I am a Chacham) they are
          exempt from taxes, and no one is allowed to sell before
          them.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PAYING IN ADVANCE IN RETURN FOR A DISCOUNT IN THE RENTAL FEE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a person may rent out his courtyard and offer the prospective tenant two methods of payment before he moves in: he may pay ten Sela for the year, or one Sela per month. The Mishnah says that the property owner may give the tenant this option only in the case of a rental, but not in the case of a sale. What is the difference between a rental and a sale in this case? The Gemara explains that in the case of a rental, the lower price (ten Sela for twelve months) is a discount for paying in advance; the market price for the courtyard is one Sela per month (twelve Sela for twelve months). No Ribis is being paid, since the proper time to pay the rental fee is only after the property has been used that month. In contrast, if the person were to purchase the field, he would have to pay all of the money right away, and if the seller lets him pay in payments, he surely is charging Ribis.
</p><p>
The <b>NESIVOS SHALOM</b> (p. 608) asks that although the Gemara addresses why no Ribis is being collected by the <i>owner</i> of the property, it does not address why no Ribis is being collected by the <i>buyer</i>. The Gemara later (73a) quotes Rav who says that one is not allowed to advance payment to a farmer for the crops of his orchard for that year. Such a payment is considered like a loan which the buyer gives to the farmer, who later pays back the loan with crops which are almost always worth more than the money advanced by the buyer. When someone rents property for ten Sela for the year, why is that not the same as purchasing the crops of an orchard in advance?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b> in Yevamos (502:3) and the <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Bava Metzia #37) give similar answers to this question. They explain that it is possible for a person to rent a property in two different ways. He can pay for his actual usage of living on the property, in which case he pays at the end of the year, or he can pay for the <i>right</i> to live on the property, in which case he pays at the moment he receives the right to live there. Accordingly, when the Gemara explains that one is allowed to pay ten Sela at the beginning of the year, it means that the landlord and the tenant agreed that the tenant is renting the <i>right</i> to live on the property. Since the rental fee in such an agreement is due at the beginning of the year, the tenant is paying on time, not in advance, in contrast to the case of the orchard in which the buyer pays in advance. If the tenant chooses to pay by the month, the agreement is that he is paying for the actual usage of the property, payment for which is due only at the end of the month.
</p><p>
The Nesivos Shalom has difficulty with this approach. According to this approach, it is possible to pay only at the beginning or end of a month. If one wants to pay in the middle of the year (a higher payment than he would pay if he were to pay at the beginning, but a lower payment than he would pay if he were to pay at the end), he would not be able to do so. If he is paying for the actual usage of the property, then he is paying a lower price for paying somewhat in advance. If he is paying for the right to live there, then he is paying <i>more</i> money than he really owes because he is not paying at the beginning of the year when he is supposed to pay. Not only do the Poskim not mention such a prohibition, but the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH HA'RAV</b> (YD 176:14) specifically mentions that the parties involved may agree that payment be made in the middle of the year as well!
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NESIVOS SHALOM</b> answers that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases. When a person rents a courtyard and pays ten Sela in advance for twelve months, he is not merely loaning money to the landowner, as in the case of the orchard. He is already renting the courtyard, which means that he is actually paying his rent. Although the Gemara says that one must pay rent only at the end of the month, this means merely that he <i>must</i> pay rent at the end of the month; it does not mean that if one pays his landlord before the proper time, the payment is considered a loan. Since he now has the right to use the property, any money paid towards the rent is considered rent and not a loan. This is why the renter is allowed to pay ten Sela in advance.
</p><p>
The Nesivos Shalom proves this from the Gemara in Bava Basra (87a) which discusses paying workers in advance. The <b>RASHBAM</b> (DH Aval) explains that if one hires a worker for one hundred days and pays his wages in full at the beginning of his service, it is not called a loan but rather a payment of his wages, despite the fact that he does not have to pay him until later. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PITUMEI MILI</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven sold his house to Shimon, and said 'when I
               get the money, return it to me', this is forbidden
               (it was a loan; Shimon enjoyed free rental for
               Ribis). If Shimon said 'when you get the money, I
               will return it to you', this is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> In the Seifa, Shimon said 'if I want, I will
               return it.' Therefore, it is a sale, and it is
               permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Ameimar):</font></b> Reuven sold land to Shimon without
               Achrayus (responsibility to compensate him if a
               creditor takes it), and saw that Shimon was sad, so
               he promised 'if it is taken from you, I will
               compensate you, these are Pitumei Mili (empty words
               of placation).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Is this because the buyer must
               stipulate, and here the seller stipulated? Rava
               explained that the Seifa permits when Shimon said
               'when you get the money, I will return it to you',
               for he means 'if I want to.' Had he not meant this,
               it would be binding, even though Reuven should
               stipulate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ameimar):</font></b> Rava means that (since Reuven
               needed to stipulate, but Shimon did,) it is as if
               Shimon said 'if I want, I will return it.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> A sick man who feared lest he die wrote a Get to his
               wife. He was groaning out of regret.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His wife:</font></b> Don't worry. If you recover, I am yours!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Zevid):</font></b> These are Pitumei Mili.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> If they were not
               Pitumei Mili, would we say that she made the Get
               conditional? Only he can do that!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Ravina):</font></b> One might have thought that he
               gives it like she wants (and she wants it to be
               conditional). Rav Zevid teaches that this is not so.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Basra 77a:</font></b> If one wanted to give a gift to
               Ploni, and said 'acquire the field for him on
               condition that you write the document', he can
               retract the document and the gift (until Ploni
               receives the document).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif brings the Gemara verbatim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 11:2):</font></b> (If one was Makneh
               land or Metaltelim, and the giver or buyer 
               stipulated Tana'im that can be fulfilled (the Kinyan
               is valid only if the Tanai was fulfilled). This is
               when he acquired through a valid Kinyan. If he did
               not acquire now and stipulated that he will acquire
               only if he fulfills the Tanai, even if he fulfilled
               it he did not acquire, for this is Asmachta.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (11):</font></b> If Reuven sold a field to Shimon and
               Shimon said on his own 'when you will have money,
               give it to me and I will return the land to you', it
               is a valid Tanai.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam explains that Rav
                    Ashi held that Rava answered that in the Seifa,
                    Shimon said 'if I want, I will return it.' I.e.
                    Reuven has no claim in Beis Din. It is not a
                    Tanai at all. Had he not said 'if I want', it
                    would be a proper Tanai. Ameimar answered that
                    if after the sale was finished, Shimon said
                    'when you will bring money, I will return it',
                    this is like a new sale after the first sale.
                    It is permitted, just like when Shimon said 'if
                    I want.' When the buyer stipulated after the
                    sale finished and no Kinyan was done about his
                    words, they are Pitumei Mili.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:27):</font></b> Ameimar taught that Reuven's acceptance
               of Achrayus was Pitumei Mili when at the beginning
               they stipulated that there will be no Achrayus, and
               the sale was not yet finished. E.g. money was given,
               but the document was not written yet, in a place
               where where they acquire through a document. Since
               the buyer initially agreed to buy without Achrayus,
               even though the seller later promised Achrayus,
               since the buyer did not repeat the stipulation (to
               demand that the sake be with Achrayus), he did not
               consider this promise primary. It was merely to
               soothe his sadness. He thought 'if I repeat the
               Tanai, he will retract. It is better to be silent.'
               Therefore, they were Pitumei Mili. However, if the
               seller promised Achrayus from the beginning, it is
               not Pitumei Mili. It is a proper Tanai. Even though
               the seller said so, and the buyer should say so,
               surely he bought according to what the seller said.
               The same applies to the Get. He decided with his
               mouth and heart to divorce without a Tanai, and she
               calmed him with words.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> The general rule is, whenever
                    one must stipulate, and he did not accept the
                    Tanai through a Kinyan, rather, through mere
                    words, he did not acquire. We say that had he
                    insisted to acquire with the Tanai, the other
                    would have retracted from his Pitumei Mili.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Gitin 6:9):</font></b> R. Meir requires every Tanai to be
               doubled (if yes... and if no...) We need not teach
               that he holds that the wife's words have no effect.
               Rather, even according to Chachamim, her words are
               Pitumei Mili.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Basra 5:5):</font></b> Some ask why he can retract
               the document and the gift. They should write the
               document and fulfill the gift against his will, like
               other Tana'im, e.g. on condition that you give to
               him 200 Zuz! They answer that here the Tanai hurts
               the giver, and they cannot write a document that
               hurts him without his consent. If he made Shluchim
               to write it, he can be Mevatel the Shlichus. I say
               that he can retract even from a Tanai that they give
               to him 200 Zuz, for it is Pitumei Mili. It benefits
               the recipient, so the recipient must stipulate.
               Therefore, the giver can be Mevatel the Tanai and
               the gift. We do not say that the Tanai is Batel and
               the action is fulfilled, for surely it is a Tanai to
               benefit the seller, and if he retracts from the
               Tanai, also the gift is Batel.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 174:1):</font></b> If Reuven sold a field to
               Shimon and said 'when I will get money, return the
               land to me', Shimon did not acquire, and all the
               Peros he eats are Ribis. If Shimon told him on his
               own 'when you will have money, I will return the
               land to you', it is not a Tanai and Shimon acquires
               immediately. If when Shimon said this. Reuven
               strengthened it, it is a Tanai. If Shimon
               stipulated, even amidst the sale, and Reuven was
               silent and did not strengthen it, it is not a Tanai.
               It is Pitumei Mili. The sale is valid, since Reuven,
               who should have stipulated, did not do so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (2):</font></b> If he said so at the beginning of
                    the sale, even if the buyer said so it is a
                    valid Tanai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 207:1):</font></b> If one was Makneh land or
               Metaltelim, and the giver or buyer stipulated
               Tana'im that can be fulfilled (the Kinyan is valid
               only if the Tanai was fulfilled).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that if the seller stipulated a Tanai
               that helps the buyer, it is not a Tanai. It is
               Pitumei Mili. This is when at first he sold Stam,
               and before the sale was finished the seller made a
               Tanai. However, if the seller said from the
               beginning 'I sell on the following Tanai', even if
               it favors the buyer, the buyer bought only on this
               condition. Similarly, if they stipulated and
               afterwards wrote a document, surely it was based on
               the initial Tanai.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Tur:</font></b> If the seller made a Tanai that helps the
                    buyer, it is invalid, like the one who bought
                    without Achrayus, and afterwards the seller
                    promised Achrayus. The Rosh says that this is
                    only when at first he sold Stam, and before the
                    sale was finished the seller made a Tanai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Kivan):</font></b> Talmidei
               ha'Rashba say that we conclude that since the buyer
               needed to stipulate and the seller stipulated, it is
               Pitumei Mili. The Ra'avad says that the Rishonim
               (Teshuvas Rif 286) say that there is no difference
               whether the buyer or seller stipulated. Rather,
               'seller' refers to any stipulation before the sale
               began; it is valid. 'Buyer' refers to any
               stipulation after the sale finished. The buyer
               already owns it, so the Tanai is void. The Ra'avad
               says that it depends on who stipulated; we discuss
               in the middle of the sale, e.g. after Chazakah but
               before money wasa given, or after money was given
               but before the document was written in a place where
               where they acquire through a document.
               Alternatively, even before Chazakah or money was
               given, if they initially agreed to sell without
               Achrayus, and now he promises Achrayus, the buyer
               should have strengthened his words, because the
               seller did not need this. Since the buyer did not
               strengthen his words, we say that they were Pitumei
               Mili. Had the buyer stipulated, it would be a proper
               Tanai. However, if the seller stipulated from the
               beginning, it is not Pitumei Mili. It is a proper
               Tanai. Even though the seller said so, and the buyer
               should say so, surely he bought according to what
               the seller said. When they already began the sale,
               or agreed to a sale, then we say that a later
               promise is Pitumei Mili. Tosfos (66a DH Pitumei)
               holds like the Ra'avad.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosvu):</font></b> Talmidei ha'Rashba cite
               the Rashba to say that even in such a case, it is
               Pitumei Mili only if he does not say it like a
               Tanai, rather, like mere narrative. If he said 'I
               sell on this condition', it is a proper Tanai. It
               seems that the Rambam holds like the Rishonim's
               Perush, that it does not depend only on who
               stipulated, only on when they stipulated.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>ASMACHTA </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  	The Halachah follows Rav Chama, R. Elazar (that fixed
          Ribis must be returned), and R. Yanai (returning money is
          like returning Peros).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PARTIAL PAYMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven paid part of the money for Shimon's
          field, who told him that when he pays the rest, he can
          have the field, this is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Levi may lend Yehudah on condition that if the loan is
          not paid within three years, Levi will keep Yehudah's
          field;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim sanctioned Baisus ben Zunin to do so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> Who eats the Peros until the buyer
          pays the rest?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> The seller eats them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Anan):</font></b> The Peros are stored with a third
          party.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	They do not argue. If Shimon said 'when you pay the rest,
          you will acquire it', Shimon eats the Peros. If he said
          'when you pay the rest, the field is yours from now', the
          Peros are left with a third party.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Safra):</font></b> Sometimes both are allowed to eat the Peros,
          sometimes neither may eat them, sometimes only the seller
          may, and sometimes only the buyer may.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> Both are allowed if he said 'acquire according to
          what you pay.' Neither is allowed if he said 'when you
          pay the rest, the field is yours from now.' Only the
          seller is allowed if he said 'when you pay the rest, the
          field will be yours.' Only the buyer is allowed, if he
          said 'acquire now, and the rest of the money is a loan.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that says forbids both?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> It is not R. Yehudah, he
          permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>TZAD ECHAD B'RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven took Shimon's house or field as collateral for
          a loan, and said 'when you want to sell it, sell it only
          to me for (the loan and) this amount (the total was still
          less than its value)', this is forbidden. If he says
          'sell it to me for its value', this is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that forbids 'for this amount'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> It is not R.
          Yehudah, who permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven sold his house or field to Shimon, and said
          'when I get the money, return it to me', this is
          forbidden (this shows it was a loan, and Shimon enjoyed
          free rental for Ribis);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon said 'when you get the money, I will
               return it to you', this is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that forbids for the amount of
          the loan?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> It is not R.
          Yehudah, who permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the cases?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> In the latter case, Shimon said 'if I
          want, I will return it.' Therefore, it is a sale.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE FORBIDDEN SALE AND THE PERMITTED LOAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah here discusses two cases. In the first case, a landowner sells a field to a buyer who makes a down payment. The seller says, 'Whenever you want, you may bring the money and take your field.' The Mishnah states that this arrangement is forbidden. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Machar Lo) explains that the field retroactively becomes the buyer's when he pays the rest of the money. Accordingly, if the seller ate the fruit of the field in the interim time, the seller effectively has taken Ribis for letting the buyer delay payment. If, on the other hand, the buyer eats the fruit of the field during this time, there is a possibility that the <i>buyer</i> will be taking Ribis: in the event that the buyer defaults on the sale and does not deliver the rest of the money by the given time, the down payment that he gave will retroactively be considered a loan to the seller, and the buyer (lender) will have eaten the fruit of the field of the seller (borrower), effectively taking Ribis for his 'loan' to the seller.
</p><p>
In the Mishnah's second case, a borrower gives his field as collateral to a lender, and they stipulate that if the borrower does not pay back the loan within three years, the field retroactively becomes payment for the loan. The fruit of the field is sold and the money held by a third party until the three years pass. If the borrower pays back the money on time, the profit from the fruit goes to the borrower and the field stays in his possession. If he does not pay back, the ownership of the field is considered to have been transferred to the lender three years ago, and the profit of the fruit goes to the lender.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> asks the following question. The Mishnah's point seems to be that when there is a possibility that the ownership of a field will be transferred retroactively when a certain time arrives, neither party may eat the fruit in the interim because of Ribis. Why does the Mishnah express this point in the case of a sale which is <i>forbidden</i> and in a case of a loan which is <i>permitted</i>? The point seems to be the same in both cases.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> answers that the Mishnah teaches its point in the first case with regard to a sale because it wants to show that even though the Halachah is often lenient in cases of sales (as Rebbi Yehudah indeed is lenient in this case because he rules that 'Tzad Echad b'Ribis' is permitted), in this case the Halachah is not lenient and such a transaction is forbidden. On the other hand, the Rabanan were generally stringent in cases of Ribis of loans. The Mishnah therefore teaches a second case to show that such a transaction is permitted even in the case of a loan.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Tosfos Yom Tov explains that the case of a permitted loan is necessary only because of the testimony which the Mishnah quotes afterwards. The Mishnah relates that Baitus used to manage his loans this way according to the Chachamim. To maintain consistency with the case of Baitus, the Mishnah teaches the second case, in which the law is lenient.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDUSHEI MAHARI'ACH</b> has difficulty with the question of the Tosfos Yom Tov. The Mishnah teaches the first case involving a sale because it needs to teach the potential problem of Ribis involved in selling a field. A deal in which the fruit is given to a third party until the ownership of the field becomes clarified is not problematic at all. The Mishnah therefore needs to teach a case in which the deal is forbidden. The second case of the Mishnah is also necessary: since the borrower is offering his field as security for a loan which is due only three years from now, it is possible that this type of transaction should be forbidden because presumably the borrower offers a field of greater value as collateral in order to receive a loan for three years. This means that a default on the loan will provide the lender with a field worth more than the loan -- which is Ribis. The Mishnah teaches that the Halachah in the case of such a loan is lenient and such a deal is permitted. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EMPTY WORDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ameimar):</font></b> Reuven sold land to Shimon without Achrayus
          (responsibility to compensate him if a creditor takes
          it), and saw that Shimon was sad, so he promised 'if it
          is taken from you, I will return any improvements or
          Peros (that you made to or grew) on it from my best
          property', these are empty words. (He just wants to make
          him feel better.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Is this because the buyer must
          stipulate, and here the seller stipulated?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the Beraisa, if Shimon said 'when you get the
               money, I will return it to you', this is permitted.
               Rava explained that this is because Shimon said 'if
               I want, I will return it.' If not, it would be
               binding, even though Reuven should stipulate!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ameimar):</font></b> Rava means, (since Reuven needed to
          stipulate, but Shimon did), it is as if Shimon said 'if I
          want, I will return it.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	A dying person wrote an (unconditional) Get to his wife.
          He was groaning out of regret.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His wife:</font></b> Don't worry. If you recover, I am yours!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Zevid):</font></b> These are empty words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> If they were not empty
          words, would we say that she made the Get conditional?
          Only he can do that!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Ravina):</font></b> One might have thought that he gives it
          like she wants (and she shows that she wants it to be on
          condition). Rav Zevid teaches that this is not so
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ASMACHTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Levi lent Yehudah (on condition to keep his
          field if the loan is not paid within three years...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> If the condition was made when the money was
          given, it is binding (even if the field is worth more
          than the loan). If the condition was made afterwards,
          Levi gets land only according to the amount of the loan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if the condition was made afterwards,
          it is binding.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Rav Nachman ruled like his opinion in a case involving
          the Reish Galusa. Rav Yehudah tore up the document. The
          Reish Galusa informed Rav Nachman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Rav Nachman:</font></b> He is a great man. Surely
               he found a good reason to tear it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 - Rav Nachman:</font></b> That was childish. The
               Halachah follows me in monetary laws!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Retraction (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if the condition was made
          when the money was given, it is void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If Levi lent Yehudah and said
          'if the loan is not paid within three years, it will be
          my field', he gets it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> I used to hold that Asmachta (an
          exaggerated promise) acquires. Minyomi convinced me that
          it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah refutes Minyomi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah is R. Yosi, who says that Asmachta
          acquires (but Chachamim argue).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET GIVEN BY A 'SHECHIV MERA' WHO THEN RECOVERS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a Shechiv Mera (dying man) gave a Get to his wife and then moaned. His wife soothingly said, 'Why do you moan? If you live, I am yours!' The Gemara says that her statement is not valid; she merely said those words to make her former husband feel better.
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that a Get given by a Shechiv Mera takes effect regardless of whether or not the man recovers. Is this indeed the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Gitin (72b, DH Af Gito) explains that this is the opinion of Rav Huna in Gitin there. Rav Huna states that the Get of a Shechiv Mera is like a gift that he gives before his death. Just as his act of giving a gift is annulled (in certain situations) if he recovers, his Get becomes annulled if he recovers. This is also the opinion of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Ka Mashma Lan) quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who questions Rashi's opinion from the Gemara here. The Gemara implies that the Get of the Shechiv Mera is valid even if he recovers. How does Rashi understand the Gemara here?
</p><p>
Tosfos does not agree with Rabeinu Tam's question on Rashi. It is possible that the two Gemaras are in disagreement. Indeed, the Gemara in Gitin quotes other opinions that argue with Rav Huna. It is reasonable that the Gemara here is quoting an opinion (that of Shmuel) who argues with Rav Huna.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> understands that the case in Gitin (72a) involves a Shechiv Mera who says that he is giving the Get 'from today, on the condition that he dies from this sickness.' Rav Huna maintains that if the husband recovers, the Get is annulled, even if he later falls ill with the same sickness. When the husband said that the Get should take effect if he dies 'from this sickness,' he meant from this bout of the sickness. When Rav Huna says that 'a Shechiv Mera, <i>his</i> Get is like <i>his</i> gift,' he refers specifically to the case mentioned in the Mishnah there, and not to every case of a Shechiv Mera who gives a Get (for, otherwise, Rav Huna would have said simply, 'The Get of a Shechiv Mera is like a gift'). Rava and Rabah maintain that if the man recovers and then becomes sick again with the same illness and dies from it, the Get is valid, since he indeed died from this illness.
</p><p>
The case of the Gemara here was the subject of considerable controversy in an actual incident which occurred in Vienna in the year 5371 (1611), known as 'the Get of Vienna.' A young man on his deathbed was persuaded to divorce his wife so that she would not need to perform Chalitzah with his brother. He was told by the person who wrote the Get that nowadays no Get is given conditionally. The man agreed to give the Get, assuming he had nothing to lose: if he would recover, he would remarry his wife, and if he would die, his wife would not require Chalitzah. Everyone who advised him assured him that he had nothing to lose. Some say that his wife even stated, 'If you live, I am yours.' He gave the Get, and then recovered from his illness, but his wife refused to remarry him. The status of the Get became the subject of great controversy. (See <b>TESHUVOS MAHARAM MI'LUBLIN</b> #122.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ASMACHTA</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 65b (Mishnah):</font></b> Levi may lend to David on condition
               that if the loan is not paid within three years,
               Levi will keep David's field. Chachamim sanctioned
               Baisus ben Zunin to do so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 66a (Rav Huna):</font></b> If the Tanai was made when the money
               was given, it is binding (even if the field is worth
               more than the loan). If the condition was made
               afterwards, Levi gets land only according to the
               amount of the loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if the Tanai was made
               afterwards, it is binding.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Retraction (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if the Tanai was made
               when the money was given, it is void. I used to hold
               that Asmachta (an exaggerated promise) acquires.
               Minyomi convinced me that it does not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah refutes Minoymi!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah is R. Yosi, who says that
               Asmachta acquires (but Chachamim argue).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, the borrower said 'acquire
               it from now (on condition that I do not pay in
               time)'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav
               Chisda):</font></b> In Neharda'a, they cite Rav Nachman to say
               that Asmachta acquires (when he does not pay up) in
               the (set) time. Not in the time (rather, before it)
               it does not acquire!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Any Kinyan acquires only at
               the proper time!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> If David is particular about
               land, Levi acquires.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> Rav bar Sheva owed money to Rav Kahana. He fixed a
               date, and said 'if I don't pay by then, you can
               collect from this wine.'
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> Asmachta does not acquire only regarding
               land, for it is not destined to be sold. Wine is
               destined to be sold, so it is like money!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Rava said
               that any (promise starting with) 'if' does not
               acquire.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 73b (Rav Chama):</font></b> If a Shali'ach received money to
               buy wine, and he was negligent and did not, he must
               give wine like the (low) major market price.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He just gets back his money. Even if he
               promised to give his wine if he will not buy, this
               is only Asmachta. There was no acquisition.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> This is unlike one who rented a field on condition
               to give a certain amount if he will not work the
               field (which is binding). There, he can surely work
               the field. Here, there is no guarantee that they
               would sell to him.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nedarim 27a (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one had documents in his
               favor in Beis Din, and said 'if I do not return
               within 30 days, these proofs should be void', and an
               Ones prevented him from returning in time, his
               proofs are void.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Rav Nachman said that the Halachah does
               not follow R. Yosi, who says that Asmachta acquires!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Here is different. Since he said that the
               proofs should be void, this is like an admission
               that they are invalid.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>20. </font></b></b> The Halachah is, Asmachta acquires when there is no
               Ones, and they acquired from him in a respected Beis
               Din.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (5:29):</font></b> In our Mishnah, he said 'from
               now.' If not (rather, he said if...), it would be
               Asmachta, and it does not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> In other cases of Asmachta, even if he said
               'from now', it acquires only if it was in an
               esteemed Beis Din (Nedarim 27b). 'They acquired from
               him' connotes Chalipin, which can only be from now,
               but not after the garment was returned. Here is
               different, for from the beginning the Mashkanta
               resembled a sale. The lender received the field to
               use. Also, the borrower benefitted from the lender.
               Therefore, he intended to fulfill his promise.
               Surely, this Asmachta is different than others.
               Here, Rav Nachman retracted only due to Minyomi. In
               Bava Basra (168a) and Nedarim, he ruled unlike R.
               Yosi! R. Tam says that here is different because the
               lender has possession of the field.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah 11:2):</font></b> If one acquired
               through a valid Kinyan, and Tana'im were made, the
               Kinyan is valid only if they were fulfilled. If he
               did not acquire now and stipulated that he will
               acquire only if he fulfills the Tanai, even if he
               fulfilled it he did not acquire, for this is
               Asmachta.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (3):</font></b> If one sold or gave a house on Tanai
               that Levi go with him to Yerushalayim on a certain
               day, and Levi made a Chazakah in the house from now,
               he acquires only if he goes on that day. However, if
               he stipulated 'if you will go with me on this day or
               give a certain item to me, I will give this house to
               you, or sell it for this amount', and Levi went on
               that day or gave the item, even if he did Chazakah
               in the house afterwards, he did not acquire. This is
               Asmachta, for he attributed the Kinyan to doing the
               action. It does not acquire, for he did not resolve
               in his heart to transfer ownership. The same applies
               to all similar cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (7):</font></b> Whoever says 'acquire from now', it is
               not Asmachta at all, and he acquires. Had the giver
               not resolved to transfer ownership, he would not
               have given from now. If he said 'if I come from now
               until such and such day, acquire the house from now'
               and a Kinyan was done, he acquired if he came in the
               time. The same applies to all similar cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:30):</font></b> We conclude that Asmachta acquires only
               if David is particular about land, i.e. from the
               beginning he was insistent not to give any other
               land for collateral. Why did the Rif omit this? Rava
               said that any 'if' does not acquire, but Rav Papa
               says that he acquires in this case. The Halachah
               follows him, for he is Basra! We conclude that
               Asmachta does not acquire, even if he said 'acquire
               for collection', and even if it is not exaggerated.
               Even though people often sell land to pay debts,
               since people do not willingly sell land, it is
               considered exaggerated. We say that Asmachta does
               not acquire wine because people do not normally sell
               it before the proper time, when it sells for more.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 174:1):</font></b> If Reuven sold a field to
               Shimon and said 'when I will get money, return the
               land to me', Shimon did not acquire, and all the
               Peros he eats are Ribis. If Shimon told him on his
               own 'when you will have money, I will return the
               land to you', it is not a Tanai and Shimon acquires
               immediately, therefore, he eats the Peros. If when
               Shimon said this Reuven strengthened it, it is a
               Tanai. If Shimon stipulated, even amidst the sale,
               and Reuven was silent and did not strengthen it, it
               is not a Tanai. It is Pitumei Mili. The sale is
               valid, since Reuven, who should have stipulated, did
               not do so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (2):</font></b> If he said so at the beginning of
                    the sale, even if the buyer said so it is a
                    valid Tanai.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (3):</font></b> This is like Rashi and the other
                    Poskim. The Rambam explains differently, like
                    we wrote in CM 207.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 207:1):</font></b> If one was Makneh land or
               Metaltelim, and the giver or buyer stipulated
               Tana'im, he acquires only if they are fulfilled.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (CM 207:6):</font></b> It sounds like the Rambam (and
                    Tur) distinguish(es) between whether or not he
                    acquired immediately. The Beis Yosef says so. I
                    proved that even if the Kinyan was immediately,
                    since the Kinyan was on Tanai, it is Asmachta
                    unless he acquired from now. The Rambam holds
                    that 'from now' is Mevatel Asmachta. Perhaps
                    this is why Ir Shushan says 'he acquired from
                    him <i>from now.</i>' However, the Rambam did not
                    mention 'from now' until Halachah 7! Also, the
                    Rambam explains that the Tanai works when he
                    says 'on condition that', but it is Asmachta
                    when he said 'if'. Also, he says 'this is
                    Asmachta, for he attributed the Kinyan to doing
                    the action.' He did not say that it is Asmachta
                    because he did not transfer ownership from now!
                    Rather, the Rambam distinguishes as follows.
                    When the seller wanted to sell the item, just
                    he wanted the Tanai to be fulfilled, this is
                    like the Tanai with Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven.
                    It is not Asmachta, and it acquires. If his
                    primary intent is fulfillment of the Tanai, but
                    the other party will do so only if he will get
                    the field, this is Asmachta.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (2):</font></b> This requires investigation. See the
                    Maharshach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Maharshach (2:163):</font></b> A case occurred in which
                    Moshe sold to Yosef a quantity of wool, to be
                    given at the time of shearing. The document
                    said that if he lacks it, he is obligated to
                    buy it to give to Yosef. The price skyrocketed.
                    This is not Asmachta, for his primary
                    obligation was to give wool, just he must buy
                    if he lacks. This is unlike the Shali'ach who
                    was negligent and did not buy wine. It was not
                    b'Yado (perhaps they would not sell to him).
                    Here, Moshe could have bought. Also, even the
                    word 'Kinyan' removes Asmachta, all the more so
                    here, where they stipulated that he is
                    <i>obligated</i>.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (5):</font></b> The Rambam holds like Rav Hai Gaon,
                    who says that any 'if' is Asmachta, for it
                    should not take effect from now.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>PITUMEI MILI </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, the borrower said 'acquire it
          from now (on condition that I do not pay in time)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav
          Chisda):</font></b> In Neharda'a, they cite Rav Nachman to say that
          Asmachta acquires (when he does not pay up) in the (set)
          time, but not in the time (rather, before it) it does not
          acquire!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Any acquisition acquires only at
          the proper time, not before!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Perhaps Rav Nachman means
               that if they met within the allotted time and
               Yehudah (the borrower) said 'acquire it (I will not
               pay)', Levi acquires (since Yehudah was under no
               pressure to pay now, surely he was sincere);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If they met after the allotted time and Yehudah said
               'acquire it', Levi does not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Yehudah was insincere. He was just
               embarrassed to say that he cannot pay now.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Even if they met within the allotted time,
          Levi does not acquire. Yehudah only intended that Levi
          not press him for payment when the time comes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Opinion #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Sometimes Asmachta acquires, and
          sometimes it does not. If (on the last day to pay) Levi
          finds Yehudah drinking beer (he is not worried about
          keeping his field), Levi acquires;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Yehudah was trying to raise the money, Levi does
               not acquire.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Perhaps Yehudah was
          drinking to calm his nervousness (about raising the
          money), or someone promised to give him the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Opinion #2 (Ravina):</font></b> Rather, if Yehudah is insistent not
          to sell his belongings below their value (this shows that
          he is not concerned to raise the money), Levi acquires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Perhaps Yehudah is
          concerned lest people not give the proper price for his
          land if they see that he is desperate to raise money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Retraction (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, if Yehudah is insistent
          not to sell any land, Levi acquires.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN APOTIKI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> Even though Asmachta does not acquire, the
          land is an Apotiki, i.e. the loan will be collected only
          from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson):</font></b> Yehudah never told
          Levi to acquire the land to collect from it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari):</font></b> Even had he told
          Levi to acquire the land to collect from it, that is
          Asmachta, so he does not acquire!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case in which Rav Papa said that
          Asmachta does not acquire, and the land is an Apotiki?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He said 'you will be paid only from this land.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Reuven bought land from Shimon with Achrayus. He
          requested 'if the land is taken from me, compensate me
          from Idi Idis (the best of your best lands)'. Shimon
          agreed to give Idis, but not his Idi Idis. The land was
          taken from Reuven; a river flooded Shimon's Idi Idis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> Shimon agreed to give (other) Idis. He still
          has Idis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Shimon only agreed to this
          assuming that his Idi Idis was intact. Now that it is
          not, his Idis is his Idi Idis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	Rav bar Sheva owed money to Rav Kahana. He fixed a date,
          and said 'if I don't pay by then, you can collect from
          this wine.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> We say that Asmachta does not acquire only
          regarding land, for it is not destined to be sold. Wine
          is destined to be sold, so it is like money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Rava said that
          any (promise starting with) 'if' does not acquire.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MISTAKEN PARDON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> Since we say that Asmachta does not
          acquire, the land and any Peros that the buyer ate revert
          to the original owner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does Rav Nachman hold that if one pardoned a
          debt based on a mistaken assumption, the pardon is
          invalid? (He contradicts himself!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If Reuven sold the fruits (that will
               grow) on his date tree, he can retract until they
               grow;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He can retract even after they grow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> I admit that if the buyer ate them,
               he need not compensate Reuven (for Reuven did not
               know that he could retract).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Mistaken pardon helps regarding a sale, but not
          regarding a loan (for it looks like Ribis).
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ORDINARY CONDITION AND AN 'ASMACHTA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses various Halachic applications of the rule, 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' -- 'an Asmachta does not acquire.' In one case, a borrower tells the lender (to whom he owes money) that if he does not pay back the loan by a certain date, the lender may collect from his wine. Rabah rules that such a condition is an Asmachta and thus is invalid.
</p><p>
What is the difference between an Asmachta and an ordinary condition (Tenai)? A Tenai is valid in all types of transactions, as derived from the Tenai which Moshe Rabeinu made with the tribes of Gad and Reuven when he told them that they may receive their portions of land in Transjordan only on the condition that they fight alongside the rest of the Jewish people to conquer Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (CM 207) in the name of the <b>RAN</b> explains that a condition is an exchange in which both parties consent to the stated outcome. This is the definition of a condition. A typical condition would be, 'If you do act A, I will do act B.' Many business transactions are structured in this manner. For example, a person may say to someone, 'If you transport an item to this place, I will give you fifty dollars.' Both Moshe Rabeinu and the people of Gad and Reuven consented to the agreement that they would receive their portions of land in Transjordan if they would join the Jewish people in conquering the land.
</p><p>
In contrast, an Asmachta is a condition stated specifically to punish or cause a loss to someone in the event that he does not fulfill certain obligations. One party dreads the condition from the start. This type of condition qualifies as an Asmachta.
</p><p>
(b) The Beis Yosef quotes the <b>RAMBAN</b> who gives another explanation of the difference between an Asmachta and a Tenai. A normal condition is made in such a way that one party gives the other a choice based on the course of action he chooses to take. For example, Moshe Rabeinu told the people of Gad and Reuven that 'if you fight alongside the Jewish people, you will receive Transjordan; if you do not fight, you will not receive that land.' The Ramban explains that when one person gives his friend two choices of action, he is in complete agreement that both possible choices are valid. However, if one states that 'I will do a certain act by a certain time, and if not, I will give you a certain thing,' he is relying on himself to do the act and he does not really anticipate, or wholeheartedly agree, to give the certain thing that he says he will give if he fails to do the act. This type of condition is called an Asmachta.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>REMA</b> (CM 207:14) records other defining features of an Asmachta. One obvious feature is when the person says, 'If I do not do this, I will give you a billion dollars.' It is clear from the amount of money that he mentions that he has no intention to give what he says he will give. (See Rema at length for various cases of Asmachta.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MISTAKEN PARDON (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> Ona'ah is mistaken pardon, and it is not
          pardoned!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Mishnah of
               Ailonis (a girl who does not develop like a normal
               female) show that mistaken pardon helps!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following do not receive a Kesuvah,
               Peros (that her husband ate from her land), food, or
               the depreciation of (Tosfos; Rashi - remnants of)
               her Tzon Barzel property: a girl who does Mi'un
               (annuls her marriage mid'Rabanan), a Sheniyah (a
               woman forbidden to her husband mid'Rabanan) or an
               Ailonis. (The Ailonis let her husband eat the fruit,
               unaware that she was an Ailonis and they are not
               really married, and he need not return it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Neither of these is a support or refutation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding Ona'ah, the victim did not intend to
               pardon anything. He did not know he overpaid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A woman is very happy to be called married. An
               Ailonis would let her husband eat, even if she knew
               that they are not really married!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Leah told Reuven 'go buy land for me from my relative.'
          The seller said 'if I get money, she should let me buy it
          back.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> You are relatives (you will settle between
               yourselves).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> The seller relied
               on this Tanai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 - Rambam - (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> (Since
               Reuven did not agree to the Tanai,) the seller did 
               not decide absolutely to sell.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He gets back the land. What is the law of the
          Peros?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Is it is fixed Ribis, and she must return it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, is it Avak Ribis, and she need not return it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is Avak Ribis. She need
          not return it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DEDUCTING FROM MASHKANTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven lent Shimon and took his
          field to be collateral, i.e. Mashkanta, and Reuven ate
          the Peros without any prior Tanai, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Like in the previous case, since there was no Tanai,
               it is Avak Ribis, so he need not return it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps there it was only Avak Ribis because it
               was a sale. Here it was a loan, so it is proper
               Ribis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Since there was no Tanai, it is Avak
          Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papi):</font></b> A case occurred, and Ravina ruled that the
          fruit returns to the seller, unlike Rabah bar Rav Huna.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mar brei d'Rav Yosef):</font></b> In a place where the borrower can
          redeem Mashkanta, if the lender ate as much Peros as the
          loan, the land reverts to the borrower;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he ate more than the loan, he need not return it.
               If the borrower owes him another debt, we do not
               deduct the excess that he ate from the other debt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a lender ate more than the loan from land of
               orphans, he must return it. If their father owed him
               another debt, we deduct the excess he ate from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> Since we say that if he ate more, he need not
          return it, if he ate the amount of the debt, we do not
          remove him from the land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> To remove him without paying him money is
          considered taking from him. We do not do this regarding
          Avak Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  	Rav Ashi ruled in a case of minor orphans as if they were
          adults. (He did not remove the lender from the land, for
          it is only Avak Ribis.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'PEIROS' AND 'BELA'OS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> When a man discovers that the woman he married is an Aylonis, he may terminate the marriage on the grounds that the marriage was a Mekach Ta'us (a transaction conducted under false premises). The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that in such a case the woman loses all rights to her Kesubah, Peiros, Mezonos (support), and Bela'os. What are Peiros and Bela'os? (See also Background to the Daf.)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Lo Peiros) explains that the Chachamim decreed that a husband may eat the fruit of property that his wife inherits during the marriage. In return for this right, the Chachamim decreed that the husband is responsible to redeem his wife in the event that she is captured and held for ransom. Rashi explains that the Beraisa teaches that a woman who is found to be an Aylonis loses the right to have her husband redeem her from captivity, and, nevertheless, she still may not demand him to pay for the fruit that he ate from her inherited properties.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH v'Lo Bela'os) explains that Bela'os are clothing which a woman brings with her into the marriage as part of her dowry. Even when these garments still exist (in contrast to Peiros, fruit which was already eaten by the husband), she must leave them in the possession of her husband.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Bela'os) has difficulty with this explanation. Tosfos asks that whenever the Gemara discusses clothing which the wife brought into the marriage and which still exists, it explicitly states 'Bela'os Kayamin' -- 'existing clothing.' The fact that the Beraisa here does not say 'Kayamin' indicates that it refers to clothing which no longer exists. Moreover, the Gemara in Kesuvos (101a) implies that an Aylonis <i>would</i> take with her the clothing which she brought into the marriage when that clothing still exists.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> therefore asserts that the Bela'os mentioned in the Beraisa are garments which she brought into the marriage and which were used up by her husband. Just as she may not ask her husband to pay her for the fruits that he ate from her inherited property, she may not ask him to pay the value of the clothes he used up that were part of her dowry.
</p><p>
Tosfos adds, however, that the Peiros which the Beraisa mentions must be Peiros that are in existence, because if they do not exist it is obvious that the husband does not have to pay for them. Even if the husband used the actual property that she inherited, he does not have to pay her for it when the marriage is deemed a Mekach Ta'us.
</p><p>
(c) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that when the Beraisa mentions Peiros, it refers to the husband's obligation to redeem his wife from captivity with his money, an obligation that comes <i>as a result</i> of the enactment of Peiros. Consequently, if the Aylonis was taken captive and redeemed herself from her own money, she may not demand that her husband compensate her for the money which she paid the captors. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY ONE RETURN A LOAN BEFORE THE TIME?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> In a place where the borrower can redeem
               Mashkanta (the lender eats the Peros of the
               borrowers' land for a fixed time), (if the lender
               dies,) his creditor does not collect from it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Kama 118a (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven received a
               deposit or borrowed from Shimon in a Yishuv (settled
               area), he may not return to him in the Midbar
               (wilderness).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> A loan may be paid
               anywhere. An Aveidah or deposit may be returned only
               to its place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa means that one may
               demand payment of a loan anywhere. One may demand an
               Aveidah or deposit only in its place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gitin 74b (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, one who bought a
               house in a walled city would hide on the last day
               the seller could redeem it. Hillel enacted that the
               seller may deposit the redemption money in a chamber
               and forcibly enter the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesuvos 81b - Question:</font></b> If we consider the Kesuvah
               to be collected in his lifetime, a Yavam could
               designate an amount sufficient to pay the Kesuvah
               and sell the rest (of his brother's property)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Basra 145a (Beraisa):</font></b> Shushbinus (gifts that
               one brings to his friend's nuptial feast) is repaid
               at the proper time (when the giver gets married).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Makos 3a (Mishnah):</font></b> If witnesses testified that
               Reuven must pay to Shimon 1000 Zuz in 30 days, and
               Reuven says that he has 10 years to pay, and they
               were Huzam, we estimate the difference of what one
               would pay for rights to have 1000 Zuz for 30 days or
               for 10 years. (They tried to make Reuven lose this.)
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramban (Teshuvah 34):</font></b> If a borrowed wants to pay
               before the time, the lender cannot refuse. He did
               not accept the money to be in his Achrayus. We say
               that where one can redeem Mashkanta early, the
               lender's creditor does not collect from it (after
               the lender died).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ran (Kesuvos 40a DH v'Garsinan):</font></b> Some learn from our
               Gemara that a borrower cannot pay a loan earlier to
               end the lien against him. This is wrong. The time
               (for paying the Kesuvah) is also to help her. A
               husband cannot pay in advance, lest it be light in
               his eyes to divorce her. The date in a regular loan
               is purely for the borrower's benefit. The Ramban
               learns this from a place where the borrower can
               redeem Mashkanta before the time fixed for the loan,
               because the time is for his benefit. Even though in
               places where one cannot redeem before the time, they
               hold that the time is for the benefit of both of
               them, and neither can claim or pay before the time,
               this is because the lender is like a buyer.
               Regarding a loan, all agree (that he can pay early).
               Also, where there is no custom, one may redeem
               Mashkanta early.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashbam (Bava Basra 145b DH Nigbis):</font></b> Shushbinus was
               given with intent that the receiver return it when
               the giver gets married. Payment is according to the
               time that the lender fixed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (CM 74:9):</font></b> The Ra'avad says that it cannot
                    be returned before the time. It is like a loan,
                    i.e. in such a case.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 74:2):</font></b> If the lender (David)
               fixed a time for the borrower (Levi), and Levi wants
               to pay earlier lest he have responsibility for the
               money until then, and David does not want to accept
               it:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the time already came, even if Levi rushes
                    to pay to save himself from coming Onesim such
                    as currency changes, taxes and conscription
                    (for the king's service), he may do so. The
                    problem is not here yet, even though it will
                    come tomorrow or even the same day after
                    payment. He need not be concerned for David's
                    loss.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (9):</font></b> Maharshach says that if David is not
                    here, Levi can give the money to Beis Din or a
                    party that Beis Din trusts, even though there
                    was no enactment like this, and the lender does
                    not know about the Ones. This was done in
                    practice in 5410 and 5411 (when the currency
                    dropped). Maharshach says that one can be
                    Mezakeh through another. I disagree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If the time did not yet come,
               if the impending currency change, tax or
               conscription is evident, Levi cannot force David to
               accept payment before the time. If there are no such
               or similar problems, even if David does not want to
               accept payment, lest he have responsibility until
               the due date, we do not heed him. Fixing a time is
               for the borrower's benefit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (5):</font></b> Paying in a Midbar even within the
                    time is like when the problem is here at the
                    time of payment. When a problem is imminent,
                    one cannot pay early because the lender could
                    not demand payment, so clearly he pays to avoid
                    the problem. Therefore, it is like paying in
                    the Midbar. We need not say that the currency
                    will change immediately, just that it is
                    imminent.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Prishah (5 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Ein):</font></b> Because
                    there is great danger in a Midbar, payment
                    there is not considered payment. Some say that
                    when one pays early, we are concerned lest
                    there will be an evident Ones before the time
                    comes, and it is like paying in a Midbar. This
                    is wrong. Sefer ha'Terumos considers paying
                    early like paying on time because the time was
                    fixed for the borrower's benefit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Bach (1 DH v'Im):</font></b> Why couldn't the Gemara
                    explain like it initially thought, that the
                    Beraisa teaches that the borrower can return
                    Bal Korcho of the lender? We can say that the
                    Mishnah says that he cannot do so before the
                    loan is due! Perhaps the Gemara assumes that
                    the Mishnah and Beraisa discuss Stam loans,
                    since they did not specify. Even though a Stam
                    loan is for 30 days, a borrower is believed to
                    say that he paid within 30 days (Rosh Bava
                    Basra 1:9). Sefer ha'Terumos discusses these
                    laws in two Simanim. In the first, he
                    distinguishes only between the Yishuv and
                    Midbar. That is when no time for payment was
                    fixed. In the second, he distinguishes only
                    between whether or not the loan was due. That
                    is when a time for payment was fixed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shiltei ha'Giborim (Bava Kama 44a 1):</font></b> If Ploni
                    lent to a storeowner (Moshe) to lend to a
                    Nochri with Ribis, and Ploni gets a share of
                    the Ribis, it is to his detriment to get his
                    money back early, so he can prevent Moshe from
                    returning it before the time.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bach (5 DH u'Mah):</font></b> If the problems were known
                    at the time of the loan, the date was for the
                    benefit of the lender, so the borrower cannot
                    force him to accept payment early. This is even
                    if the problem passed, and the borrower merely
                    wants to escape responsibility, and the chance
                    of loss is small. Tosfos (Gitin 75a DH Michlal)
                    says that (regarding Bayis Ir Chomah, even
                    after the time came) payment Bal Korcho is
                    invalid if the receiver loses. Shiltei
                    ha'Giborim says that one cannot force the
                    lender to accept early payment if this will
                    limit his gain, all the more so if it will
                    cause him a loss!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Shach 11):</font></b> If the problem passed, the
                    lender cannot refuse to accept payment. We
                    cannot learn from Bayis Ir Chomah, in which
                    there is a loss now. We cannot learn from the
                    storeowner (in Shiltei ha'Giborim), for that
                    loan was made in order that the lender will
                    profit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Tumim (6):</font></b> The Rosh (Gitin 6:7) and Rashba
                    distinguish a loan from Bayis Ir Chomah. The
                    latter is a new sale. Also, a borrower can say
                    'I hold like Version #2 of Rava, that payment
                    Bal Korcho is valid.' Why do the Bach and Shach
                    agree about the storeowner? There are places
                    that allow early return of Mashkanta, even
                    though the lender ate much Peros for a small
                    amount, and now loses this! Likewise, a worker
                    can end an Iska (a half-loan, half deposit in
                    which the investor pays a wage to the worker
                    and gets profits) before the time! The Rashba
                    (Kidushin 13a DH Savra) says that a Shomer can
                    return the deposit early, just like a worker
                    can quit in the middle, for Bnei Yisrael are
                    slaves only to Hash-m. The same applies to the
                    storeowner.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ketzos ha'Choshen (74:1):</font></b> The Ra'avad and Magid
                    Mishneh hold that a Shomer cannot return the
                    deposit early, for Shmirah is unlike a job. It
                    is acceptance of liability for loss to the
                    deposit. One can retract early from working for
                    an Iska, but not from responsibility to guard
                    it. Likewise, the storeowner cannot exempt
                    himself from guarding the money for the set
                    time.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ix. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (10):</font></b> In Makos, we obligate witnesses for
                    trying to make one pay a loan early. This
                    implies that (barring special problems) it is
                    always considered advantageous for the borrower
                    to delay payment.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>WHEN AND WHERE MAY ONE RETURN A DEPOSIT? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava brei d'Rav Yosef):</font></b> In a place where the borrower
          can redeem his Mashkanta, the lender may eat the Peros
          only if he deducts (a fixed amount per year from the
          loan);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Chacham may not eat the Peros even if he deducts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> How may a Chacham eat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He may eat through Kitzusa (this will be
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that Kitzusa is
          permitted. According to the opinion that Kitzusa is
          forbidden, how can we answer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Acha or Ravina):</font></b> Kitzusa is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina):</font></b> It is forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Question:</font></b> What is Kitzusa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The lender eats the Peros for a specified
               time without deducting anything. After this, he
               evaluates all the Peros he eats (and deducts it from
               the loan).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> No one permits eating without deducting;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Question:</font></b> What is Kitzusa (that they
               argue about)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The lender eats the Peros for a specified
               time, and deducts a fixed amount per year. After
               this, he deducts the value of all the Peros he eats
               from the loan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> According to Version #1, all permit the
          Kitzusa of Version #2 (even for a Chacham).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to Version #2, according to the
               opinion that forbids Kitzusa, how may a Chacham eat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> He writes Mashkanta of Sura: 'after such and
          such years, the land reverts to the owner for free.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MASHKANTA THAT CAN BE REDEEMED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> In a place
          where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, (if the lender
          dies,) his creditor does not collect from it (since it is
          not considered land), and his firstborn does not get a
          double portion of it (it is a mere loan, not land);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Such a loan is cancelled in Shemitah (it is not
               considered a loan with a security);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In a place where the borrower cannot redeem it (we
               consider it to be sold to the lender, therefore) his
               creditor collects from it, his firstborn gets a
               double portion of it, and such a loan is not
               cancelled in Shemitah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mar Zutra):</font></b> In a place where the borrower can redeem
          Mashkanta, the lender cannot keep even dates that fell on
          mats under the trees;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the lender picked them up to put them in baskets
               (before he was repaid), he acquired them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that a buyer's Kelim
               acquire for him in the seller's domain, he acquires
               them without lifting them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Obviously, in a place where the borrower can redeem
          Mashkanta, if he says (at the time of the loan) that he
          will not, he cannot;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> In a place where the borrower cannot redeem
          Mashkanta, if he says (at the time of the loan) that he
          will, must he make an acquisition for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> He does not need an acquisition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> He needs an
          acquisition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	(In a place where the borrower can redeem,) if he says
          'don't eat. I am going to fetch the money for you', the
          lender may not eat (since the money is ready);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Ravina):</font></b> If he says 'don't eat. I am going to toil to
          obtain the money', the lender may still eat;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari):</font></b> He may not eat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Mar Zutra.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  	Rav Kahana, Rav Papa and Rav Ashi would not eat through
          deducting (a fixed amount per year). Ravina ate through
          deducting.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mar Zutra):</font></b> Ravina would eat, like we find regarding one
          who was Makdish his inherited field: one who redeems it
          can eat much Peros for a fixed amount per year, (just
          over) four Zuz a year;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Those that would not eat hold that a loan is
               different, for it looks like Ribis.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHO MAY ENTER INTO AN ARRANGEMENT OF 'NACHYAISA'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses an arrangement called 'Nachyaisa' -- 'deduction.' This refers to a case in which a borrower gives a field to the lender as collateral for the loan, and stipulates that each year a set amount of money be deducted from the debt in exchange for the lender's right to keep the fruit of the field. The Gemara says that such an arrangement does not constitute Ribis. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Asra d'Mesalkei) explains that since a set amount is deducted from the debt each year in exchange for the fruit regardless of the quality of crop that the field yields, the arrangement resembles a sale and not a loan with interest. Hence, this arrangement is permitted even if the lender ends up taking more fruit than the set amount which he deducts from the loan.
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that a 'Tzurba me'Rabanan,' a Torah scholar, should not enter into such an arrangement. The Gemara later relates that Ravina entered into such an arrangement (as the lender). Why did he do this? Was Ravina not a Talmid Chacham? Moreover, Ravina earlier in the Gemara had an argument with Rav Acha. One of them said that an arrangement of Kitzusa (where there is more room for leniency than Nachyaisa) is forbidden, and the other said that although Kitzusa is permitted, an arrangement of Nachyaisa may be done only by an ordinary person and not by a Talmid Chacham. Even if Ravina's opinion in this argument is the lenient one, he still says that a Talmid Chacham may not enter an arrangement of Nachyaisa!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ravina) answers in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> that Ravina simply did not think of himself as a Talmid Chacham. (Tosfos notes that Rabeinu Tam's text apparently read 'Rafram' instead of 'Ravina.')
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> writes that this explanation is difficult to understand, but he does not explain the difficulty. The <b>CHIDUSHIM</b> U'VI'URIM explains the difficulty. Borrowing money in any other manner (other than through a Nachyaisa arrangement) does not show that a person is a Talmid Chacham! How can Tosfos say that Ravina entered into a Nachyaisa transaction because he did not consider himself a Talmid Chacham? No one would have assumed that he was a Talmid Chacham had he borrowed money in any other manner!
</p><p>
The <b>ELIYAH RABAH</b> (OC 554:26) questions the explanation of Tosfos from the Gemara in Ta'anis (10b). The Gemara there quotes Raban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that a person may consider himself a Talmid Chacham in order to be stringent or act in a more difficult way, such as undertaking a fast which is observed only by Talmidei Chachamim. Accordingly, why did Ravina not consider himself a Talmid Chacham and avoid lending with a Nachyaisa arrangement? Since Nachyaisa is a more profitable arrangement for the lender, Ravina would have had to sacrifice in order to enter an arrangement of Kitzusa instead of Nachyaisa, and thus there would have been no problem of an unworthy person acting like a Talmid Chacham, according to the Gemara in Ta'anis. Why does Tosfos say that Ravina did not want to consider himself a Talmid Chacham, if one is permitted to do so in order to be stringent upon himself?
</p><p>
1. The Eliyah Rabah answers that perhaps the Gemara in Ta'anis refers only to acting in a way which causes physical pain. To undergo physical pain, any person may consider himself a Talmid Chacham. In contrast, to consider oneself a Talmid Chacham in order to turn down a monetary gain gives the appearance of arrogance and is not permitted.
</p><p>
2. The Eliyah Rabah cites the <b>RAMBAM</b> in <b>PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS</b> (Pesachim 4:5) who writes that the Halachah does not follow the view of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and one may never give himself the status of a Talmid Chacham. Perhaps Tosfos here follows the view of the Rambam.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos quotes others who explain that when the Gemara says that 'Ravina ate through Nachyaisa,' it actually refers to an arrangement of <i>Kitzusa</i>, which the Gemara says is permitted even for a Talmid Chacham. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER LAWS OF MASHKANTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> If one did not specify, Mashkanta is for a
          year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The borrower can redeem only after a year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> The word Mashkanta comes from 'd'Shechunah
          Gavei' (it resides with him);
<br>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that if the borrower sells it, the
               lender has first option to buy it. He is the closest
               neighbor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> The Halachah is unlike the following: Tarsha of
          Rav Papa, documents of Chuznai, and land rentals of
          Narshai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Tarsha of Rav Papa - he would sell wine in Tishrei
               according to the price of Nisan, on condition to be
               paid later (65A);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Documents of Chuznai - wholesalers who sell goods to
               merchants (to be paid later), and the amount written
               in the document is the principal and half the
               anticipated profit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is forbidden, for perhaps there will be no
                    profit (and the borrower must pay Ribis)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar bar Ameimar:</font></b> My father does so. If the
                    buyer said that he did not profit, he believed
                    him!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rav Ashi:</font></b> He should be concerned that if he
                    dies, his heirs might not believe the buyer!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> 'Ki'Shgagah she'Yotza mi'Lifnei ha'Shalit' -
                    because Rav Ashi was not careful with his
                    words, Ameimar died immediately.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rentals of Narshai - they write that Reuven took
               land for collateral, and rented it back to the
               owner;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Reuven cannot rent it back, for he never
                    acquired the land!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Nowadays, they write that Reuven acquired the field
               and it was by him for a while, then he rented it
               back. This is permitted, to encourage loans.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, also this is forbidden.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHARING THE PROFITS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven gave goods to Shimon to sell in a
          store (for more than the wholesale price. Half the goods
          are a loan, and half are a deposit. Each gets the profit
          on his half.) This is permitted only if in addition, he
          pays him like a worker (for selling Reuven's half);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies if he gave money to buy goods and
               share the profit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he gave eggs to Shimon, to put hens on them to develop
          chicks and share the profit (the increased value of
          chicks over eggs), he must pay for Shimon's toil and the
          chicken feed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies if he estimated the value of calves
               or foals, and asked Shimon to raise them (to share
               the profits or loss);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He may give calves or foals to Shimon to raise, on
               condition to evenly share their value when they
               reach a third of their ultimate growth (Rashi;
               Rambam - three years) or donkeys until they can bear
               burdens.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Rashi (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> He is paid like an
          idle worker (the amount he would want to receive to
          consent to neglect his work and be idle).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He did not rest. He was selling goods!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DIVIDING THE VALUE OF A CALF BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE CATTLE-RAISER</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah discusses a partnership arrangement wherein the owner of calves hands them over to someone to raise them. When the calves become 'Meshulashin,' which <b>RASHI</b> means that they grow one third of their normal growth, the partners split the animals.
</p><p>
Does this mean that the partners split only the <i>increase</i> in value of the animals, while the original owner of the calf receives the full value of the calf before it was raised by the second partner, do the partners split the entire value of the animal?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>CHIDUSHIM</b> U'VI'URIM points out that <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Aval) understands that only the increase in value is split between the partners. The original value of the calf is kept by the owner. Tosfos reasons as follows. The person who fattens the calf has no liability if the calf dies. Accordingly, there clearly is no problem of Ribis in this case (as there is in some of the other cases of the Mishnah, such as where a storekeeper sells merchandise on behalf of a wholesaler and they split the profit, but the storeowner is liable for the merchandise). Since this arrangement involves no problem of Ribis it obviously is permitted, so why does the Mishnah need to mention it? Tosfos answers that the Mishnah is teaching that whenever two people make such an arrangement the assumption is that the one taking care of the calf has no liability to pay for the animal in case it dies while under his care. Tosfos says that proof for this is that the calf is not appraised when the owner gives it to the person who will raise it, but it is appraised only when it has grown one-third of its eventual growth. The appraisal focuses on how much the calf has increased in value over the value of a young calf. This amount -- the <i>increase</i> in value -- is split evenly between the owner and the cattle-raiser.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b>, however, maintain that the entire value of the cow is split between the two partners when it reaches the point of 'Meshulashin.' The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that the cattle-raiser receives half of the value of the calf in exchange for his hard work in fattening the calf.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDUSHEI MAHARI'ACH</b> suggests that this is also the position of <b>RASHI</b> (DH Aval) and the <b>BARTENURA</b>, who mention that the cattle-raiser has no liability for the calf if it dies, and when it lives (that is, when it reaches a third of its eventual growth) 'they will split it between them.' These words imply that they split the total value of the calf. The Mahari'ach explains that the reason why Rashi says that an appraisal of the calf's value is made only after it has a grown a third, and not when it is initially given to the cattle-raiser, is because there is no need to assess its initial value, since the partners split the entire value of the animal evenly (and the original value is not given solely to the original owner). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMPENSATION FOR ONE WHO WORKS WITH AN ISKA</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 30b (Mishnah):</font></b> If in the time Reuven spent returning
               an Aveidah, he lost one Sela of earnings, he may not
               demand compensation of one Sela. Rather, he is paid
               like a worker.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 31b (Beraisa):</font></b> He is paid like an idle worker.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He did not rest. He returned an Aveidah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He is paid like a worker idle from
               that job.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 68a (Mishnah):</font></b> If Shimon gave goods to Reuven to
               sell (for a higher price. Half the goods are a loan,
               half are a deposit. Each gets the profit on his
               half;) this is permitted only if in addition he pays
               him like a worker (for selling Shimon's half).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> The same applies if he gave money to buy goods and
               share the profit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> He is paid like an idle worker.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He is paid like a worker idle from
               the job he was engaging in.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> The Mishnah needed to teach both cases.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Had it taught only about selling in a store,
                    one might have thought that since it is light
                    work, he is paid only like an idle worker, but
                    to buy merchandise, he would get his full
                    normal wage;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Had it taught only about buying merchandise,
                    one might have thought that since it is hard
                    work, he is paid like an idle worker, but to
                    sell in a store, he gets a pittance, and even
                    if he ate a drop of Shimon's food, that is
                    enough.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> How much is he paid?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (R. Meir):</font></b> (Whatever they stipulate
               suffices,) be it much or little;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It suffices if he eats
               vegetables dipped in brine or a dried fig of Reuven;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (R. Shimon):</font></b> He must receive his full
               normal wage.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif (39b):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Meir (who says
               that whatever they stipulate suffices), for the Stam
               Mishnah is like him. Every day of the partnership,
               he must give like a worker idle from that job. It
               says 'be it much or little', according to what they
               stipulated. Alternatively, they may fix a wage for
               the entire partnership. Rava (69a) taught that if
               the investor gets half the profit, he must bear two
               thirds of the loss. If the investor bears half the
               loss, he gets only a third of the profit. The extra
               profit for the worker is his wage.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Ba'al ha'Ma'or):</font></b> The Halachah follows
                    R. Shimon (who says that he gets his full
                    normal wage), for the Stam Mishnah is like him.
                    One who hired workers and did not have work for
                    them pays their full wage, except he deducts
                    for there was less toil. This is only for a
                    grocer, who engages in the Iska the entire day,
                    but not for one who raises another's animals.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Milchamos Hash-m):</font></b> In a Teshuvah, the
                    Rif brought three proofs that are Mishnah is R.
                    Meir. 1. A Stam Mishnah is assumes to be R.
                    Meir. If it were like R. Shimon, the Gemara
                    would have said so. 2. In a Tosefta, R. Meir
                    says that he is paid like an idle worker. 3.
                    The Gemara brought the Tosefta that says 'he is
                    paid like an idle worker' to explain our
                    Mishnah. This explains the Mishnah only if it
                    is like R. Meir; who said 'be it much or
                    little', i.e. whatever they stipulated. Also,
                    the Gemara discusses R. Meir's opinion. This
                    shows that the Halachah follows him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shutafim 6:2):</font></b> Chachamim enacted
               that if Reuven does business with Shimon's money,
               half is a loan and half is a deposit. Each has
               Acharayos, i.e. suffers losses, even b'Ones, on his
               half. We cannot say that each gets half the profits.
               If so Reuven works in exchange for the loan, and
               this is Avak Ribis. If they want to share the
               profits, Shimon must pay Reuven for his toil for
               every day of the partnership, like a worker idle
               from that the job that he neglects.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:39):</font></b> Abaye explained that he gets like one
               idle from that job. I.e., regardless of his job, he
               is paid like one who had no job. This is like R.
               Meir. Rashi explained 'like one idle from that job',
               i.e. how much one would want to be paid to do this
               easy task, in place of his normal wage for his more
               strenuous job. If so, our Mishnah is like R. Shimon.
               A Tosefta says that it is like R. Meir! Also, why
               did the Gemara suggest that pay like an idle worker
               would not suffice for buying merchandise, which is a
               toil? He is paid according to his toil! Even though
               I explained like Rashi above regarding an Aveidah,
               here is different. There, he should receive his full 
               wage. Here, Chachamim were lenient about Ribis
               mid'Rabanan. If he gives a little, it does not look
               like Ribis.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 177:2):</font></b> If Reuven does Iska with
               Shimon's merchandise, and half the Acharayos is
               Reuven's and half is Shimon's, it is forbidden. Iska
               is half a loan and half a deposit. Reuven toils for
               the deposit in exchange for the loan. Therefore,
               Shimon must pay Reuven for his toil for every day of
               the partnership, like a worker idle from the job
               that he neglects.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Tur:</font></b> He is paid the amount that one without a
                    job would want to do such toil.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Beis Yosef DH v'Lo Kol):</font></b> This is
                    unlike the Rosh and Tosfos. They rejected
                    Rashi, because the Gemara asked why we ignore
                    his toil for the Iska (and according to Rashi,
                    we do not ignore it)! This is difficult also
                    for the Tur! Rather, he is paid like one who is
                    totally idle. Tosfos ha'Rosh also says so. The
                    Rif holds like Rashi. The Mishnah Torah cites
                    the words of the Gemara. This connotes like the
                    Rif. Perush ha'Mishnayos is like Rashi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Defense (Drishah 1, citing Chachmas Shlomo):
                    Someone without a job would not demand very
                    much. The Gemara asked that it is unreasonable
                    to be so lenient when engaging in the Iska
                    requires much toil. Even though he is paid for
                    the toil, it is not very much. The Beis Yosef
                    understood that we evaluate how much one he
                    would want to take to be idle from his job and
                    do nothing. This is wrong. Regarding Hashavas
                    Aveidah, the Gemara asked that 'idle' connotes
                    that he is totally idle. Why didn't the Gemara
                    ask also here (regarding Ribis) that he is not
                    totally idle?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Drishah (1):</font></b> Tosfos explains like the Beis
                    Yosef. Regarding Hashavas Aveidah, Tosfos
                    explains like Rashi. The questioner thought
                    that we evaluate how much he would want to be
                    totally idle. Abaye answered that we evaluate
                    how much he would want to do the easier task.
                    Regarding Iska, we asked what 'like an idle
                    worker' means, and answered like the questioner
                    thought regarding Hashavas Aveidah. Here, the
                    Gemara did not ask that he is not totally idle,
                    for it knew that the borrower would happily
                    work without extra compensation. Chachamim
                    required something lest it look like Avak
                    Ribis, so any amount suffices. Also, regarding
                    Hashavas Aveidah the Gemara did not ask that he
                    is not totally idle. Abaye 'asked', in order to
                    give his answer!
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (5):</font></b> Some Poskim say that we always
                    consider how much one without a job would want,
                    even if Reuven had a lucrative job. The Beis
                    Yosef holds like Poskim who say that we
                    evaluate how much he would want to be totally
                    Batel, regardless of the task he will need to
                    do. RashI say that we evaluate how much he
                    would want to cease from his higher paying job,
                    which is more strenuous. The Rashba says that
                    we consider how much he earns when his
                    profession is in low demand.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>COMPENSATION FOR RETURNING AN AVEIDAH </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He is paid like a worker would want to
          receive to engage in light labor (such as selling)
          instead of his usual (harder) job.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Tosfos (Beraisa):</font></b> He is paid like an idle
          worker.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is the amount a worker would want to
          receive to rest from his labor. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	The Mishnah needed to teach both cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about selling in a store, one
               might have thought that since it is light work, he
               is paid only like an idle worker, but to buy
               merchandise, he would get his full normal wage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about buying merchandise, one
               might have thought that since it is hard work, he is
               paid like an idle worker, but to sell in a store, he
               would get a pittance, and even if he ate a drop of
               Reuven's food, that is enough.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa) Question:</font></b> How much is he paid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Meir):</font></b> Whatever they stipulate suffices, be
          it much or little;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It suffices if he eats vegetables
          dipped in brine or a dried fig of Reuven;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (R. Shimon):</font></b> He must receive his full normal
          wage (like an idle worker).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CARING FOR ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We may not estimate and give (to share the
          profits) goats, sheep or anything that eats and does not
          work;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits goats and sheep, for they
          give milk and wool, and hens (they lay and hatch eggs).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Do Chachamim (the first Tana) say that milk and
          wool do not suffice for the toil and food?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No. If Shimon keeps all the milk and wool, all
          agree that this is permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue when he gets only whey and wool that is
               washed off the sheep.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim rule like R. Shimon, that he must receive
               full wages. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah rules like R.
               Yehudah, that it suffices if he eats a drop.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If Leah has a hen, she may charge Rachel two
          chicks a year for sitting it on Rachel's eggs;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, she may stipulate that they will share
          the chicks;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon forbids this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does R. Yehudah not require that Leah receive
          wages and food?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He says that it suffices if she keeps the eggs
          that do not develop into chicks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> In a place where one (who raises a young
          animal) gets wages for carrying it, he must get, we do
          not change from the local custom;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if the animal's mother was
          given with the child, he need not get wages (the child
          need not be carried, for it follows its mother).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does R. Shimon ben Gamliel not require that he
          get wages and food?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He gets the dung (for fertilizer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that the owner makes it Hefker anyway,
               so this is not considered wages.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) MAY A BORROWER PAY 'AVAK RIBIS' TO THE LENDER?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a document was found which revealed that Rav Ilish engaged in a transaction which apparently involved payment of Avak Ribis to a lender. Rava exclaimed, 'Rav Ilish is a great man, and he would never make someone sin!'
</p><p>
Rava's wording seems odd. Rava should have said, 'Rav Ilish is a great man, and he would never commit a sin!' Since the prohibition of Ribis applies to both the lender and the borrower, this is the wording that Rava should have used. Why did Rava say instead that Rav Ilish 'would never make someone sin'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos #938) proves from the Gemara here that in contrast to ordinary Ribis, which both the lender is forbidden from taking and the borrower is forbidden from giving, the prohibition of Avak Ribis applies only to the lender. The borrower is not prohibited from paying Avak Ribis per se. Rather, if he pays Avak Ribis he causes the lender to transgress the prohibition against <i>accepting</i> Avak Ribis.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> explains that the specific transaction in the case of the Gemara here did not involve a prohibition against paying Ribis. In this case, Rav Ilish accepted half of someone's merchandise as a loan, and he agreed to sell <i>all</i> of the merchandise in return for splitting the profits with the owner, paying him back the value of the borrowed goods after the sale. Since he was responsible for selling the merchandise, the owner was required to pay him for his work (as the Mishnah earlier (68a) says), for otherwise he is paying Avak Ribis to the owner by working and selling the owner's share of the merchandise. Since he is not actually working for nothing, as he would work anyway to sell his share of the merchandise, his work is not considered Avak Ribis. The Rosh explains that this is why Rava says that Rav Ilish 'would never make someone sin,' since he would only be making the lender sin ('Lifnei Iver'), but he would transgress no prohibition of Avak Ribis himself.
</p><p>
There are several different ways to understand the words of the Rosh.
</p><p>
1. The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 4:2) explains that the Rosh argues with the Rashba. The Rashba understands that there is a general rule that a borrower who pays Avak Ribis never transgresses a prohibition of Ribis. The Rosh understands that the borrower who pays Avak Ribis could transgress a prohibition of Ribis in a different case. It is only because Rav Ilish was working anyway that there was no prohibition for him to pay Avak Ribis (aside from 'Lifnei Iver').
</p><p>
2. The Mishneh l'Melech quotes the <b>RANACH</b> (2:21) who says that the Rosh agrees with the Rashba. However, the Mishneh l'Melech rejects this approach for many reasons, among them that it is not consistent with the wording of the Rosh.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in <b>DERUSH V'CHIDUSH</b>, 72b) writes that he does not understand how these Rishonim can deduce from the Gemara that there is no prohibition of Avak Ribis for a borrower. Why do the Rishonim not assume that there is no prohibition of Avak Ribis for the borrower until he pays? If this is true, it is possible that Rav Ilish entered into the transaction but never planned to pay the Ribis, as he would take his partner to Beis Din (if necessary) in order to show him that this is Ribis. This assumption might have prompted Rava's statement that Rav Ilish would not make someone sin. Rebbi Akiva Eiger explains that although this sounds like a clever scheme, the lender <i>does</i> transgress Avak Ribis when the agreement is made. Accordingly, it is possible that Rava said that Rav Ilish was a great man who would never enter into such a transaction even though he transgresses nothing, because he would be causing the lender to sin! If this is the explanation of the Gemara, there is no proof that the borrower does not transgress Avak Ribis <i>when he pays</i> the money to the lender. Rebbi Akiva Eiger leaves this question unanswered. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE INVESTOR MUST PAY SOMETHING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah, R. Yosi
          b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	A document was presented against Rav Ilish's sons saying
          that their father had received an Iska (business venture)
          on condition to receive half the profit or loss.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rava:</font></b> Rav Ilish was a great man. He knows that the
          investor must accept more of the loss than the gain!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the investor gets half the profit, he must bear
               two thirds of the loss;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the investor bears half the loss, he only gets a
               third of the profit. (The investor's share of the
               loss is a deposit, and the rest is a loan to the
               receiver. The receiver gets an extra sixth of the
               profits; this is his wages for his toil on the
               investor's portion.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Zevid):</font></b> Perhaps Rav Ilish ate some of the
          investor's food!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah (who
               says that this suffices).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Rav Nachman did not say that the
          Halachah follows R. Yehudah, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and
          R. Shimon ben Gamliel, rather that they all hold
          similarly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support:</font></b> There would be no need to rule like all of them.
          It would suffice to rule like R. Yehudah, who is the most
          lenient of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> One who gives an animal to raise may stipulate
          that (they will share the profits equally up to a third),
          and the receiver will get all the profits above a third.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> This is forbidden, lest the profit will not
          exceed a third (and the receiver's toil on the investor's
          half is Ribis for the half that is a loan)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, the investor must guarantee the receiver
               wages of a Dinar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does Rav really hold that he need not guarantee
          a Dinar?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Rav):</font></b> If Reuven received an animal to
               fatten it, he keeps the head (and half the increased
               value).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, Reuven gets all the profits
               above a third (and still, he must get the head)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> No, he gets all the profits above a third, or
          the head (if the profit does not exceed a third).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Rav permits getting (only) all the profits
          above a third when the receiver has an animal of his own.
          Since he must feed his own, the toil of feeding another
          animal is minute.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	R. Elazar of Hegronya bought an animal and gave it to his
          sharecropper to fatten it. He gave him the head and half
          the profit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	The sharecropper's wife (to her husband):</font></b> Had you been a
          partner in the animal, you would have received the entire
          tail as well!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  	The next time, they bought the animal together; R. Elazar
          gave him half the tail, and said 'let us divide the
          head.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	The sharecropper:</font></b> Do I get less than when you owned the
          entire animal?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Elazar:</font></b> Before, it was my animal. If I didn't give you
          extra, it would look like Ribis. Now we are partners, so
          there is no concern!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> You think that you should get more,
               because you worked harder!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Normally, sharecroppers ensure that the
               landowner will not need to buy fodder. (It is
               accepted practice that the sharecropper should work
               harder.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENDING A PARTNERSHIP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa #1 - Sumchus):</font></b> If Reuven accepted a donkey (its
          value was estimated) to raise, he must care for it for 18
          months. He must care for a small animal (i.e. that does
          not work) for 24 months;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven wants to share the profits before these
               times, the giver can stop him. However, the toil of
               the first year is unlike the toil of the second.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does this mean (however...)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, this is because the toil of the
               first year is less than the toil of the second.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa #2):</font></b> If Reuven accepted an animal (whose value
          was estimated) to raise, he must care for the offspring
          for 30 days if it is a small animal, and for 50 days if
          it is a big animal;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi says, he must care for offspring of a small
          animal for three months, because they need more care.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do they need more care?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is because their teeth are small.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	After this, Reuven gets his half and half of the giver's
          half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rav Menashiya bar Gada took his half and half of the
          giver's half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Abaye:</font></b> Who estimated the value for you? Also, here, the
          custom is to raise the offspring!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Where the custom is to raise them, he
               must raise them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	Two Kusim made an Iska together. One divided the money by
          himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Papa:</font></b> The division stands. Rav Nachman said that
          money is as if it was already divided. It does not need
          an evaluation
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	The next year the Kusim bought wine together. The other
          one divided the wine by himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Papa:</font></b> Who authorized you to divide?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	The Kusi:</font></b> Why do you always favor my partner?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Papa:</font></b> Different wines are of different qualities (you
          cannot divide by yourself). Your partner did not take
          good coins and leave bad coins for you!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MUST A BEIS DIN EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND ITS RULING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that two people came before Rav Papa with a dispute. They were partners in a business venture, and one of them dissolved the partnership (by selling the assets and dividing the proceeds) without the other's knowledge. Rav Papa ruled that the sale of the assets was valid. The same parties later became joint owners in wine. This time, the partner who did not consent to the dissolution of the previous partnership decided to sell the wine without the knowledge of the other partner. They came before Rav Papa who said to the partner who sold the wine, 'Who told you that this was the true value of the donkey?' That partner complained that Rav Papa always rules against him. Rav Papa replied, 'In such a case I certainly must inform him [of my reasoning.' He proceeded to explain why the two cases were different.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (69b, DH Ki Hai Gavna) asks that Rav Papa's statement implies that he normally would not explain his rulings even when requested to do so. However, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (31b) states that when a person is summoned to appear before Beis Din, he has the right to request a written explanation of the Beis Din's ruling. Does Rav Papa argue with that statement?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that the Gemara in Sanhedrin refers specifically to a case in which the person is <i>forced</i> to appear before that Beis Din. If the person is not forced to appear before the Beis Din, there is no requirement that the Beis Din divulge its reasoning behind its ruling, even when requested to do so.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> agrees with Rabeinu Tam but adds that there is another, and more fundamental, difference between the two Gemaras. When the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the defendant may demand that the reason behind the judgment be put in writing for him, it does not mean that the Beis Din must write all of the sources on which its conclusion is based. It means that the Beis Din must record the arguments of the two sides, and state its ruling. In contrast, Rav Papa here explained the logical reasoning behind his ruling, which is not the subject of the Gemara in Sanhedrin.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos quotes others who explain that the Gemara here does not refer to the explanation behind a ruling. The correct translation of Rav Papa's statement, 'Ki Hai Gavna Vadai Tzarich l'Oduyei' is, 'In such a case one definitely must inform [his partner].' Rav Papa was <i>responding</i> to the defendant, not making a comment to himself that he should reveal the reason behind his ruling. Accordingly, Rav Papa's statement is unrelated to the teaching of the Gemara in Sanhedrin. (See the <b>RITVA</b> who has difficulty with this explanation.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY ONE TAKE RIBIS THROUGH A SHA'LIACH?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 69b (Rava):</font></b> Reuven may tell Shimon 'take four Zuz
               and lend money to Levi.' The Torah forbids only
               Ribis paid from the borrower to the lender.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Reuven may tell Shimon 'take four Zuz, and
               ask Levi to lend to me.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The money is wages for Shimon to speak on his
               behalf.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (338):</font></b> In a Teshuvah, Rashi permits David
               to tell Levi 'lend to me Moshe's money, with Ribis.'
               The loan and Ribis is sent through Levi. The Torah
               forbids only Ribis that the borrower gives directly
               to the lender. Here, Levi does not transgress, for
               the money is not his. The Meshale'ach does not
               transgress, for Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah. One
               should not publicize this.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (YD 160:16):</font></b> Some permit David to tell Levi
               'lend to me Moshe's money, with Ribis', for the
               borrower does not give directly to the lender. The
               loan and Ribis is sent through Levi. The Shali'ach
               does not transgress, for the money is not his. David
               and Moshe do not transgress, for Ein Shali'ach
               l'Devar Aveirah. One should not publicize this in
               front of Amei ha'Aretz. Some question this Heter and
               are stringent to forbid it; one may rely on it when
               needed. If the borrower took the money straight from
               the lender, Ribis is forbidden even through a
               Shali'ach!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal #1 (Beis Yosef DH v'Chosav):</font></b> No Posek
                    holds like Rashi. All say that it is Ribis. The
                    Tur says that if one was paid to ask Ploni to
                    lend (Sechar Amirah), Ploni may not take the
                    money from him. Also, we forbid lending with
                    Ribis through a Nochri. One may not rely on
                    this at all. It seems that Rashi never
                    permitted this. An errant Talmid wrote this and
                    attributed it to Rashi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Darchei Moshe 6,7 and 169:3):</font></b> Even
                    Rashi forbids Ribis through a Shali'ach when
                    Shimon borrowed directly from Ploni. In this
                    case, the Tur forbids only to take Sechar
                    Amirah. Even Rashi forbids Ribis through a
                    Nochri. He is stringent to say that a Nochri
                    can be a Shali'ach. Yesh Shali'ach (l'Devar
                    Aveirah), for Ribis is permitted to Nochrim. In
                    any case, l'Chatchilah it is good to be
                    stringent not to rely on Rashi's Heter.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Chidushei Anshei Shem (60, on Mordechai 325):
                    Here, the Mordechai forbids taking Sechar
                    Amirah. This is when Almoni directly lent to
                    the borrower.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal #2 (Levush 13):</font></b> Rashi holds that 'Ein
                    Shali'ach' voids the Shelichus. Why was the
                    Rema lenient? The Beis Yosef said that all
                    Poskim disagree! In every case it is forbidden
                    mid'Oraisa. We say Ein Shali'ach, for the
                    Shali'ach must heed Hash-m. He sins, for the
                    Aveirah was done, like if one ordered a Yisrael
                    to eat pork. If the Shali'ach was Mezid, he
                    causes transgression of taking and paying
                    Ribis. If he was unaware of the Ribis, the
                    Meshale'ach transgresses Lifnei Iver (making
                    another transgress).
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Mishneh l'Melech Hilchos Malveh 5:14
                    DH ha'Oleh):</font></b> The borrower didn't pay the
                    lender, for Ein Shali'ach. No Isur was done,
                    unlike 'go eat pork!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levush:</font></b> If the Torah permitted Ribis via a
                    Shali'ach, it would be a mockery in the eyes of
                    the masses. It would be better not to forbid at
                    all, than to forbid it and permit it in a way
                    that anyone may breach it. The Isur is not only
                    to pay Ribis directly to the lender. It is so
                    that 'your brother will live with you'. The
                    lender may not profit at the borrower's
                    expense, even if he pays via Shali'ach! People
                    would always lend this way. It is easy to find
                    a Shali'ach in Yisrael!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Note:</font></b> A rich lender might be ashamed to ask a
                    Shali'ach to lend to a poor widow with Ribis!
                    The Torah gives many loopholes. One may redeem
                    much Hekdesh on a Perutah. Giving any share of
                    one's animal to a Nochri exempts from Bechorah
                    and Ma'aser. Taking Peros into the house
                    through the roof exempts from Ma'aser.
                    Exempting borrowers from paying until after
                    Shemitah avoids cancellation of loans...!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Levush:</font></b> RashI say not to publicize this to Amei
                    ha'Aretz. We need not cover up what the Torah
                    permits! The Torah was given openly to all! One
                    who lacks money (to lend) may pay his own money
                    to a lender to give a loan and help the
                    borrower. Carefree people and Amei ha'Aretz
                    read the Rema and permit l'Chatchilah, and
                    violate even Rashi's opinion. Ribis became a
                    joke in their eyes. Surely the Meshale'ach
                    transgresses all the Lavim via the Shali'ach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ix. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Shach 22):</font></b> The Darchei Moshe answered
                    the Beis Yosef's questions. We find that
                    Chachamim commanded to conceal Heterim from
                    Amei ha'Aretz, e.g. that one fulfills Talmud
                    Torah through saying Kri'as Shema. The Maharik,
                    Binyamin Ze'ev and Bach defend the Rema's
                    ruling.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>x.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal #3 (Taz 11):</font></b> It is no different if
                    David lends directly to Moshe. If the Shali'ach
                    is in place of David, when Moshe gives to him,
                    this is like paying Ribis to the lender. When
                    the Shali'ach pays David, he is like a borrower
                    paying Ribis to the lender! A Yisrael may not
                    be a Nochri's Shali'ach to lend to a Yisrael,
                    for Ein Shelichus l'Nochri. Here also, Ein
                    Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah! He is like an
                    involved party dealing with the borrower and
                    lender.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>xi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Nekudas ha'Kesef):</font></b> Borrowing through a
                    Shali'ach is not like borrowing directly, for
                    Ein Shali'ach. When he borrowed directly, what
                    he pays extra is Ribis, and Ein Shali'ach does
                    not permit it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>xii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (ibid.):</font></b> Also, if one may pay Ribis through
                    a Shali'ach, what Aveirah is it to borrow
                    straight from the lender? One may say 'lend to
                    me with Ribis', as long as he does not pay
                    Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>xiii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Question (Gilyon Maharsha):</font></b> One may not say so,
                    due to 'Lo Sesimun'!
               xiv. Taz (ibid.): Even if you will say that one may
                    not say this, one may borrow without saying it!
                    We forbid Ribis Me'ucheres, i.e. sending money
                    after the loan 'for your money that delayed
                    with me' (75b). We forbid through a Shali'ach,
                    even without intent for Ribis at the time of
                    the loan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>xv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Nekudas ha'Kesef):</font></b> We forbid
                    only when he borrowed directly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (ibid.):</font></b> If one vowed not to benefit Ploni, he
               may not send to him through a Shali'ach. We do not
               permit due to Ein Shali'ach! Rather, Ein Shali'ach
               exempts the Meshale'ach from Kares or lashes, but
               it is forbidden to do so.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Defense #1 (Nekudas ha'Kesef):</font></b> Regarding a vow,
                    one may not send through a Shali'ach, for the
                    recipient will benefit, and this is forbidden.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Defense #2 (ha'Makneh, Kidushin 42b DH Omar):
                    Ein Shali'ach does not apply here, for the Isur
                    applies only to the one who may not benefit (Ran).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Support (of Taz - Gilyon Maharsha):</font></b> We do not
                    apply 'Ein Shali'ach' to permit one who made
                    Eruv Tavshilim to cook for one who did not (OC
                    528:20)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (ibid.):</font></b> Through Hefker Beis Din, Beis Din
                    may lend orphans' money in a way more apt to
                    gain than to lose, but may not get absolute
                    Ribis. This is not because Beis Din is the father
                    of orphans (so it is as if the lender directly
                    gave to the borrower). We say so to help them,
                    but not to harm them. Also, if so Beis Din should
                    lend via a Shali'ach and get real Ribis!
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense (Nekudas ha'Kesef):</font></b> Regarding orphans,
                    the Gemara gave one of several Heterim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levush, Taz and Gra (35):</font></b> Surely, Rashi never
                    said this. One may not rely on it at all. If
                    I could, I would erase this Heter from Seforim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b></b>Beis Lechem Yehudah and Pischei Teshuvah 17):
                    The Taz is correct. It seems that the argument
                    is not so wide, and he forbids only mid'Rabanan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Note:</font></b> The Levush explicitly forbids mid'Oraisa.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ix. </font></b></b> Mishneh l'Melech (Hilchos Malveh 5:14 DH ha'Oleh):
                    The Ritva says that a Kohen Shali'ach is not
                    Bar Chiyuva for the Meshale'ach's Kidushin.
                    Likewise, a Shali'ach is not Bar Chiyuva for
                    the Meshale'ach's loan, so Ravina forbids. The
                    Rema rules like Ravina in CM 182. We cannot
                    permit mid'Rabanan Ribis, e.g. through a sale,
                    through a Shali'ach. Perhaps Rashi permits only
                    Ribis mid'Oraisa, for then Ein Shali'ach! The
                    Maharit was unsure about this.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>x.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pischei Teshuvah (14):</font></b> The Sha'ar ha'Melech
                    permits even if Yesh Shali'ach for Isurim
                    mid'Rabanan. Chachamim forbade only Ribis that
                    could lead to Ribis mid'Oraisa!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>xi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pischei Teshuvah (16, citing Mahari Di Boton
                    168):</font></b> If the Meshale'ach forced and intimidated
                    the Shali'ach, (Yesh Shali'ach and) he is
                    liable. The Sha'ar ha'Melech disagrees, for the
                    Gemara did not find a pit of partners in this way!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If a document was written in the name of the
               lender, primarily, the document makes the loan, and
               it is forbidden.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (ibid, citing Maharik 17):</font></b> If Ploni
                    was a Shali'ach for Reuven to lend to Shimon,
                    and unknown to Reuven he stipulated for Ribis
                    and Shimon signed to obligate himself to
                    Reuven, even Rashi forbids. This is Ribis from
                    the borrower to the lender, from the time he
                    wrote the document.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (37):</font></b> Writing the document itself is
                    forbidden (62a).
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>DOES SHALI'ACH L'DEVAR AVEIRAH TAKE EFFECT? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> Coins are considered to be divided.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  	This is only if they are all good or all poor, but not if
          there are good and bad.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOR WHAT MAY ONE TAKE MONEY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	Rav Chama used to rent a Zuz for an eighth of a Zuz per
          day (and accept any loss due to Ones). He lost all his
          money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He reasoned that one may rent them, just like one
               may rent a shovel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> A shovel is different, for one returns the
          same shovel itself, and it depreciates. One does not
          return the same coins, and they do not readily
          depreciate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> Reuven may tell Shimon 'take four Zuz and lend
          money to Levi.' The Torah forbids only Ribis paid from
          the borrower to the lender.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> Reuven may tell Shimon 'take four Zuz, and ask
          Levi to lend money to me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The money is wages for Shimon to speak on his
          behalf.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	Aba Mar, Rav Papa's son, used to take small cakes of wax
          from wax salesmen and tell his father to lend to them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan (to Rav Papa):</font></b> Your son is taking Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Papa:</font></b> The Torah forbids only Ribis paid from the
               borrower to the lender. My son takes wages for 
               speaking on their behalf.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RENTAL WITH LIABILITY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may estimate and give (to share the
          profits) a cow, donkey or anything that works and eats.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	In a place where they normally divide the offspring
          immediately, they do so. In a place where they raise
          them, they raise them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one may estimate a calf or
          foal with its mother, and he may increase (rental of) his
          field without concern for Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> Increasing rental: if Reuven rented
          Shimon's field for 10 Korim of wheat per year, he may ask
          to borrow money to improve the field, and he will then
          pay 12 Korim per year;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Regarding a store or ship, this is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> Sometimes one may increase their rental:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one decorates a store, this attracts customers,
               so it is worth more;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one puts a mast or sail on a ship, it is worth
               more.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> One may rent a ship on condition that the renter
          must pay if it breaks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi):</font></b> If he rents it, he is 
          exempt for breakage. If he is liable for breakage, he is
          a borrower, and he does not pay rent!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	Rav was silent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Sheshes:</font></b> Rav should have defended himself from a
          Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though we may not accept from a
               Yisrael a 'Tzon Barzel' Iska (the receiver accepts
               any loss, and any profits are shared), we may accept
               from Nochrim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> However, one may accept from a Yisrael a cow
               estimated at 30 Dinarim on condition to give a Sela
               rental per month, because he did not estimate it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> He did estimate it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The estimation applies only if
               it will die. (If it merely decreases in value, he is
               exempt.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> The Halachah is, one may rent a ship on
          condition to pay if it breaks;
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'MAFRIZ AL SADEHU V'EINO CHOSHESH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses the case of a person who rents a field in exchange for providing the owner with ten Kur of wheat per year. The Beraisa explains that the renter is entitled to ask the owner to give him 200 Zuz so that he can take better care of the field, and in return he will give the owner twelve Kur of wheat per year. However, a similar arrangement may not be made when one rents a store or a boat.
</p><p>
What is the nature of the 200 Zuz which the owner gives the renter? Is it considered a loan or an investment?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ten Li) explains that the Beraisa means that the owner of the field should <i>lend</i> to the renter 200 Zuz. The renter pays back the loan at the specified time, in addition to the twelve Kur per year.
</p><p>
Why is this arrangement not considered Ribis? After all, the owner of the field gains two Kur per year in return for giving the renter a 200-Zuz loan!
</p><p>
The <b>NESIVOS SHALOM</b> (YD 176:5) explains the words of Rashi based on the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 7:9), who has a slightly different understanding of the Gemara. The Rambam, like Rashi, explains that the 200 Zuz must be paid back to the owner, but he says that the renter takes the 200 Zuz in order to drastically increase the productivity of the field (for example, he invests in an improved irrigation system), and he commits to pay the owner two more Kur <i>per year</i>. The Nesivos Shalom understands that the Rambam means that the 200 Zuz in fact is paid back to the owner when the changes are made to the field. When the renter pays 200 Zuz at the end of the year along with the two extra Kur, he is paying for the rental of a field of a much higher quality, and therefore he pays a higher <i>rental fee</i> -- of 200 Zuz plus two extra Kur. He is not paying anything extra in return for the loan itself. The Nesivos Shalom suggests that this may be the basis for Rashi's explanation (although he admits that the words of Rashi do not seem to consistent with this explanation).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BACH</b> (YD 176) understands that the 200 Zuz is not a loan, but a simple investment. The renter of the field advises the owner that if the field would be improved with a 200-Zuz investment, the owner would be able to charge a higher rental fee. (The renter's motivation in giving such advice presumably is that he believes that he would be able to harvest a much larger crop with an improved field.) The 200 Zuz is an investment which goes from the owner directly to the field; the renter is not obligated to return or guard the money.
</p><p>
However, the Nesivos Shalom points out that according to this explanation, the Beraisa is teaching nothing novel. Why would one have thought that the owner cannot invest in his field and charge a higher rental fee? Perhaps the answer to this question is that the Chidush of the Beraisa is in the Seifa, which says that such an arrangement may not be made in the case of the rental of a store or boat. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RENTAL WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR BREAKAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	The custom of ship-drivers is to pay the rental when they
          move the ship, and to pay the loss when it breaks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Does the law depend in the custom? (If he will
          pay when it breaks, it is as if he buys it, but he pays
          rental now because he will pay only later!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa justifies the custom. (Since he is
          liable only for death (regarding a ship, breakage, total
          loss but not depreciation), he may also pay rent.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MONEY OF ORPHANS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Anan citing Shmuel):</font></b> We may lend orphans' money on
          Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Nachman:</font></b> We may not cause them to transgress. They
          will be punished for this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> What was the case (from which you inferred this)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Anan:</font></b> Shmuel had a cauldron of Mar Ukva's orphans. He
          rented it to others and also charged them if it decreased
          in weight.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> To pay both is Ribis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may pay both even to adults.
          They pay for the loss of weight, and also rental because
          the remaining metal depreciates through usage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> One may invest orphans' money on
          condition that they can profit but cannot lose. (This is
          Avak Ribis, which is normally forbidden mid'Rabanan.
          Regarding orphans, Chachamim permit it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one invests money on condition that he can
          profit but cannot lose, he is evil. If he can lose but
          cannot profit, he is a Chasid. If he can profit or lose,
          or can neither profit nor lose, this like most people do.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabah (to Rav Yosef):</font></b> What do we do with orphans' money?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Yosef:</font></b> We leave it in Beis Din and give them each Zuz
          when they need it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabah:</font></b> The principal will dissipate!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Yosef:</font></b> What do you suggest?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabah:</font></b> We find a man who owns pieces of gold. We buy
          pieces of gold with their money, and invest it with him,
          on condition that they can gain but cannot lose.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot use a man who owns only identifiable
               things. Perhaps they are a deposit. The owner will
               give a Siman and retrieve his deposit!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If we do not find such a man, will
          we allow the orphans to consume the principal?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, we find a man whose property is
          uncontested. He must be trustworthy, knowledgeable of
          Torah law and acquiescent to Beis Din. We invest the
          money with him in Beis Din, on condition that they can
          gain but cannot lose.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LENDING MONEY OF ORPHANS WITH INTEREST</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Anan in the name of Shmuel ruled that the overseer of the estate of orphans may lend their money with interest. Rav Nachman objected on the grounds that Beis Din may not 'feed something forbidden' to orphans, referring to the money earned as interest. Rav Nachman asked Rav Anan for the details of the case in which Rav Anan stated Shmuel's ruling, and it was discovered that the case in which Shmuel ruled leniently was not a case of absolute interest. Rather, Shmuel had permitted the orphans to receive rent money for their kettle <i>and</i> to take money for the loss of copper caused by the normal use of the kettle. Normally, one may not charge rent for the use of an object <i>and</i> make the renter pay for the object's depreciation. Since the renter must return the exact value of the object that he rented, it is considered like a loan, and the rental payment is considered Ribis. Nevertheless, in the case of the orphans' kettle, Rav Nachman ruled that it did not involve Ribis because the owner (i.e. the orphans) of the kettle still must suffer a loss due to the remaining copper that has deteriorated.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes in the name of Rav Chisda (or Rav Sheshes) that the overseer is permitted to lend out the money of orphans with interest in a case in which the money is 'Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed' -- the money is invested in such a way that the manager of the money will be responsible for any loss to the money while the orphans will still receive their share of the profit. <b>RASHI</b> writes that this form of Ribis is prohibited only mid'Rabanan, and in the case of the money of orphans the Chachamim were lenient and did not prohibit it, in order to preserve the assets of the orphans.
</p><p>
Rashi implies that when Rav Anan originally said in the name of Shmuel that the overseer is permitted to lend out the money of orphans with interest, he was referring even to Ribis d'Oraisa ('Ribis Ketzutzah'). How could Rav Anan have entertained the possibility that one is permitted to do an Isur d'Oraisa with the orphans' money?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that (according to Rashi's opinion) when the overseer lends the money of the orphans with Ribis, he transgresses no Isur d'Oraisa himself. The money is not his; he is merely the Shali'ach of the orphans. The orphans themselves transgress nothing, because they are not obligated to observe the Mitzvos since they are minors. Although Beis Din may not feed a prohibited item to minors, this applies only when the minor himself is involved in the act of the Isur (such as when he eats food that is not kosher). Here, however, the minors are not doing any act at all. Therefore, Rav Anan understood that the prohibition against feeding an Isur to a Katan does not apply.
</p><p>
The Rashba points out that even Rav Nachman, who rejected Rav Anan's statement based on the ruling that Beis Din may not feed an Isur to a Katan, agreed that it is not prohibited <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to give the orphans money earned as interest. Rather, his argument was that the Chachamim would not have permitted such conduct due to the grave risks of Divine retribution involved with lending with interest.
</p><p>
Still, however, why did Rav Anan permit the one who <i>borrowed</i> the orphans' money to pay interest? The Isur of Ribis applies not only to the lender but also to the borrower! <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ma'os), in his second answer, explains that there is no Isur of Ribis for the borrower when the <i>lender</i> does not transgress any Isur. In the case of the orphans, since the orphans are minors who are not commanded to refrain from lending with Ribis, the borrower also does not transgress when he pays interest. Accordingly, Rav Anan ruled that the money of the orphans may be lent with interest, and he was not concerned that the borrower would transgress any Isur.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHAT FORMS OF RIBIS MAY ORPHANS RECEIVE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a situation in which money of orphans may be lent with interest: when the money that is lent is 'Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed' (literally, 'close to profit and far from loss'). This refers to a case in which the manager of the funds will be responsible for any loss to the money, while the orphans will still receive their share of the profit. <b>RASHI</b> writes that this form of Ribis is prohibited only mid'Rabanan ('Avak Ribis'), and in the case of the money of orphans the Chachamim were lenient and did not prohibit it, in order to preserve the assets of the orphans.
</p><p>
Is this form of Ribis d'Rabanan ('Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed') the only form of Ribis which is permitted for the money of orphans, or are other forms of Ribis d'Rabanan permitted?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RITVA</b> writes that the Chachamim permitted only Ribis of 'Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed.' All other forms of Ribis d'Rabanan are <i>prohibited</i>. He proves this from the fact that the Gemara does not say that 'Avak Ribis is permitted with the money of orphans,' but it says specifically that 'Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed' is permitted. (The Ritva explains the difference between this type of Avak Ribis and all other types of Avak Ribis.)
</p><p>
The <b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA</b> (cited by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b>) is in doubt about whether <i>all</i> types of Ribis d'Rabanan are permitted, or only 'Karov li'Sechar v'Rachok l'Hefsed.' He mentions that perhaps only this type of Ribis d'Rabanan is permitted because it does not look like Ribis, but rather it looks like the money of the orphans is deposited for safekeeping with someone. When the money is returned to them (with the profit that accrued), it does not look like a borrower is paying extra in return for a loan, but rather it merely looks like the manager is returning the orphans' own money to them. Because of this doubt, the Rashba there writes that it is preferable to be stringent (and not to permit any other type of Avak Ribis with the money of orphans; this is in contrast to the way he rules in Chidushim here, that all Avak Ribis is permitted with the money of orphans).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 4:14) writes that all forms of Ribis d'Rabanan are permitted with the money of orphans. This is also the view of the <b>RAN</b> and <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b>, and the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>ROSH</b>.
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 160:18) writes, 'Any Ribis d'Rabanan is permitted with the money of orphans and with money consecrated for poor people or for Talmud Torah or for the need of a synagogue.' The wording of the Shulchan Aruch implies that all forms of Ribis d'Rabanan are permitted with the money of orphans.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHOSE MONEY MAY BE LENT ON RIBIS?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Anan citing Shmuel):</font></b> We may lend orphans' money
               on Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> We should not cause them to transgress.
               They will be punished for this! What was the case
               (from which you inferred this)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Anan:</font></b> Mar Ukva's orphans had a cauldron by
               Shmuel; he rented it to others and also charged them
               if it decreased in weight. To pay both is Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may pay both even to
               people with beards (adults). They pay for the loss
               of weight, and also rental, because the remaining
               metal depreciates through usage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> One may invest orphans' money on
               condition that they are apt to profit but not to
               lose.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What do we do with orphans' money?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We leave it in Beis Din and
               give them each Zuz when they need it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (and Answer #2 - Rav Ashi):</font></b> We do not
               allow them to consume the principal! Rather, we find
               a man with uncontested property, who is trustworthy,
               knows Torah law and does not accept excommunication.
               We invest the money with him in Beis Din, on
               condition that they are apt to profit but not to
               lose.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Kama 93a:</font></b> In Pumbadisa, Rav Yosef deposited
               Tzedakah money with a man. He was negligent, and
               thieves took it. Rav Yosef obligated him to pay.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> 'To guard' - not (if he
               was given)... to distribute to Aniyim:
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> (In most places, we do not know
               who was destined to receive the money, so no Oni can
               claim it.) In Pumbadisa, each Oni gets a fixed
               amount from Tzedakah. The man was like a Shomer for
               every Oni.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesuvos 106b (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> We do not invest
               Hekdesh or Tzedakah for the sake of profit. We do
               not invest Hekdesh, lest the rich appear to be poor.
               We do not invest Tzedakah, lest an Oni come, and
               there will not be what to give to him.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif and Rosh (7:50,51) bring the Gemara in Bava
               Metzi'a.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (50):</font></b> The Ge'onim permit all Ribis mid'Rabanan
               with orphans' money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Sof 51):</font></b> We invest the money with him in Beis
               Din, in order that the fear of Beis Din will be on
               him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 4:14):</font></b> We may give orphans'
               money to a trustworthy man with good property on
               condition that the orphans are apt to profit but not
               to lose.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Maimoniyos (Mishpatim Teshuvah 14):</font></b> A
                    man was negligent with Tzedakah money, and Rav
                    Yosef obligated him to pay. This shows that
                    Tzedakah is not like Hekdesh, rather, like
                    money of people. Avi ha'Ezri learned from here
                    that we may not lend Hekdesh on Ribis. My Rebbi
                    permits. He learns from the Yerushalmi, which
                    allows borrowing on Ribis for the sake of a
                    Mitzvah like (the meal to publicize) Kidush
                    ha'Chodesh. Since we may borrow on Ribis for
                    the sake of a Mitzvah, all the more so we may
                    lend on Ribis (money for) the Mitzvah itself.
                    The Ri permits even Ribis mid'Oraisa, since it
                    did not say 'apt to profit but not to lose',
                    i.e. Ribis mid'Rabanan. Also, Stam 'Ribis'
                    connotes mid'Oraisa. Rav Yosef obligated the
                    man only because in Pumbadisa, each Oni gets a
                    fixed amount from Tzedakah. Elsewhere, one may
                    lend Tzedakah on Ribis. A Mishnah forbids
                    investing Tzedakah. It refers to Tzedakah that
                    is to be distributed. We may invest Tzedakah in
                    which the principal remains and Aniyim eat the
                    Peros.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mishneh l'Melech DH Od Kosav):</font></b> The
                    Tur says that Avi ha'Ezri forbids even Ribis
                    mid'Rabanan. What is his source?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mordechai (Bava Metzi'a 287):</font></b> Avi ha'Ezri
                    learns from Kesuvos. We gave different reasons
                    why we do not invest Hekdesh and Tzedakah. This
                    shows that they are different, so we may not
                    lend Tzedakah on Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Teshuvah 13:8):</font></b> Fixed (mid'Oraisa) Ribis is
               not permitted with money made 'Hekdesh' for the poor
               or Talmud Torah, only with Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis,
               which is not 'Achicha'. One pays for damage to an ox
               of 'Re'ehu (his fellowman)', but not of Hekdesh.
               Maharam me'Rotenburg proves from Bava Kama that
               money of Aniyim is like of Re'ehu. Abaye wanted to
               exempt the Shomer due to 'Lishmor' - not to
               distribute to Aniyim. If it were not Mamon Re'ehu,
               in any case he is exempt! Why did Maharam need a
               proof? This is obvious!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishneh l'Melech (Malveh 4:14 DH Kosav
                    ha'Rashba):</font></b> The Rashba (669) says that perhaps
                    we are lenient to lend money for Talmud Torah
                    on Ribis to Yisraelim because the Ribis does
                    not go from borrower to lender. The money does
                    not have known owners. However, one should not
                    do so, lest people be lenient elsewhere. The
                    Maharit (39) understood that this is because
                    one does not pay Ribis to 'Re'ehu'. He asks
                    (45) why the Rosh considers it obvious that
                    money of Aniyim is Re'ehu. He answers that
                    money that no one can claim is not called
                    money. One might have thought that if Levi gave
                    money for Aniyim, it is considered his until it
                    is distributed. We expound 'Lishmor' - not to
                    distribute to Aniyim. I.e., it is not called
                    Levi's money. It seems that the Rashba permits
                    because there is no Isur for the owner of the
                    money.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 160:18):</font></b> All Ribis mid'Rabanan is
               permitted with money of orphans, and 'Hekdesh' for
               Aniyim, Talmud Torah or needs of a Beis ha'Keneses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> The custom is to be lenient, even though some
               are stringent to require making the contract in Beis
               Din.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Ma'os):</font></b> The Mordechai (like
                    Rashi) said that we invest in Beis Din, for
                    they can make the man's property Hefker (to
                    allow Ribis mid'Rabanan). Without Beis Din, the
                    orphans' money is like regular money. The Rosh
                    disagrees. Rather, it is to instill fear of
                    Beis Din on him. Talmidei ha'Rashba suggest
                    that perhaps Beis Din must authorize lending
                    the orphans' money.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pilpulei Charifta (5:5):</font></b> The Rosh disagrees
                    with Rashi, for surely we do not need Beis Din
                    to permit Ribis mid'Rabanan with orphans'
                    money. Chachamim permitted it!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Rashba):</font></b> The Rashba
                    says that the Yerushalmi explains that 'apt to
                    profit but not to lose' is when the borrower
                    accepts any loss on himself, and to share any
                    profit. The principal will remain for the
                    orphans. He may not borrow for his own needs
                    and repay later, for this is absolute Ribis!
                    The Rashba says that perhaps the only Ribis
                    mid'Rabanan permitted is 'apt to profit but not
                    to lose', in which the orphans' principal
                    remains intact, and the profits come from it,
                    not from the borrower's money. The Ge'onim,
                    Rambam and Rosh all permit all Ribis
                    mid'Rabanan, so we are not concerned for the
                    Rashba's Safek.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (27):</font></b> I never saw or heard of anyone lend
                    such money on Ribis. We lend only in ways
                    permitted even for adults.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> An overseer may lend an orphan's money on
               Ribis mid'Rabanan until he is mature enough to
               handle his money, even if he is above 13.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Kasuv bi'Terumas):</font></b> The Terumas
                    ha'Deshen (300) says that if a man does not
                    want to feed his son or help him manage, the
                    son is not considered an orphan. It seems that
                    if a man died and the son does not know how to
                    manage his money, even if he is an adult, he is
                    considered an orphan. If so, one should be
                    allowed to lend a widow's money on Ribis
                    mid'Rabanan, for most widows do not know how to
                    manage their money! This is astounding; no
                    Posek ever said so. Perhaps this is because she
                    can manage her money like other women; she need
                    not be able to manage it like men. The Maharil
                    was not lenient for orphans above 13.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (46):</font></b> The Gemara said 'one may pay both
                    even to people with beards.' This shows that in
                    all cases, one with a full beard has
                    understanding. He is not considered an orphan.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>MAY WE INVEST MONEY OF ORPHANS OR THE POOR? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>TZON BARZEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We may not accept Tzon Barzel from a Yisrael;
          since it is Ribis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We may accept from a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	We may borrow from or lend to a Nochri or Ger Toshav (a
          Nochri who accepted to guard his seven Mitzvos) on Ribis;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	We may lend a Nochri's money according to his will, but
          not according to the Yisrael's.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Inference:</font></b> (Since this is called Ribis,) we may
          infer that Tzon Barzel belongs to the receiver (he
          suffers any losses (Rashi - and the profits are shared;
          Tosfos - the investor is guaranteed a fixed revenue)).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> If one accepts Tzon Barzel from
          a Nochri, the offspring are exempt from Bechorah (the
          firstborn has no Kedushah and need not be redeemed. This
          proves that it belongs to the Nochri.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> If the investor bears any decrease in
          value of the goods or any Ones, it is considered his. If
          not, it is the receiver's.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection #1 (Rava):</font></b> If the investor bears any decrease
          in value or Ones, that is not Tzon Barzel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Reisha permits accepting Tzon
          Barzel from a Nochri. It should distinguish within the
          case of Yisrael, and permit if the investor bears any
          decrease in value or Ones!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, in both cases the investor does
          not bear decrease in value or Ones;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Bechorah does not apply because if the Yisrael does
               not return the estimated value, the Nochri will take
               the animal, and if he cannot, he will take the
               offspring;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Whenever a Nochri has rights in an animal, Bechorah
               does not apply.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RIBIS FROM NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> 'One who gets rich through Ribis, l'Chonen
          Dalim Yikbetzenu (the one who is gracious to the poor
          will gather it)' - who is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav):</font></b> Ii people like Shevor Malka (the Persian
          king, who would take from Yisrael and give to the
          Nochrim, who are poor in Mitzvos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The verse teaches that even one
          who lends to a Nochri on Ribis will lose his money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava) Suggestion:</font></b> We read 'la'Nochri Sashuch
          (you will take Ribis from him)'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No, we read 'Sashich' (you will pay Ribis to
          him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is that a Mitzvah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> No. It excludes a Yisrael, to whom you may not
          pay Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> 'Ul'Achicha Lo Sashich' forbids that!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'La'Nochri Sashich' adds an Isur derived from a
          Mitzvas Aseh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> We may borrow from or lend to a
          Nochri or Ger Toshav on Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Chiya brei d'Rav Huna):</font></b> The Mishnah permits
          one to take Ribis from a Nochri only if he needs it to
          survive.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) THE DEGREE OF LIABILITY WHICH ONE MUST ACCEPT TO PERMIT A 'TZON BARZEL' TRANSACTION</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one may not accept 'Tzon Barzel' assets from another Jew. In a 'Tzon Barzel' agreement, the recipient who manages the assets is obligated to compensate the owner for any decrease in the value of the assets. Consequently, the money or assets that he receives from the owner is considered a loan, and any profit that the recipient makes and gives to the owner is like interest paid for the loan. The Gemara explains that if the owner of the assets accepts upon himself responsibility for any Ones or depreciation ('Onsa v'Zola') that might occur to his assets, there is no Ribis involved and the transaction is permitted.
</p><p>
The Gemara mentions two forms of liability that the owner might accept upon himself: the loss of the assets (such as through an Ones), and the depreciation of the value of the assets. In order to permit an agreement of 'Tzon Barzel,' does the owner need to accept both forms of liability upon himself, or does it suffice to accept only one?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 8:12) and <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 177:1) write that if the owner of the property accepted upon himself responsibility for the loss or depreciation of the assets, then the property is considered to be in his possession (and it is not a loan but a deposit) and the transaction is permitted. The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> to the Shulchan Aruch there) writes that the owner must accept <i>both</i> forms of liability in order for the transaction not to be considered a loan and not involve Ribis. He infers this from the way Abaye differentiates between the case of the Mishnah here and the case of the Mishnah in Bechoros. Abaye says that the Mishnah in Bechoros refers to when the owner 'accepted upon himself any <i>Ones and depreciation</i>.' Similarly, in the rest of the Sugya, 'Ones and depreciation' are mentioned together, implying that the owner must accept both in order for the transaction to be permitted. (See Tosfos to 70a, DH d'Ka.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MACHANEH EFRAIM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 32) understands that the Rambam is of the opinion that it suffices for the owner to accept responsibility for only <i>one</i> of the risks -- <i>either</i> Ones <i>or</i> depreciation. The Machaneh Efraim writes that the Rambam infers this from the Gemara earlier (69b) that discusses the case of a boat that was rented out. He understands the Gemara like Rashi, who writes that the renter is permitted to accept upon himself liability for Ones if the owner accepts upon himself responsibility for depreciation, and this allowance applies even for Kelim that are not subject to deterioration (unlike the case of the copper kettle that deteriorates). Rashi maintains that the owner's responsibility for depreciation alone suffices to make the transaction a deposit and not a loan.
</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO LENDS ON RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> The Mishnah permits only a Chacham;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman forbids lending to a Nochri on Ribis
               lest one learn from his deeds. A Chacham would not
               learn from his deeds.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> '(If you will lend) Ami
          Es he'Ani Imach' - if My people and a Nochri request a
          loan, My people come first;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> An Oni comes before a rich person. Poor people of
               your family come before those of your city. Poor
               people of your city come before those of another
               city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must the Beraisa teach that My people come
          before a Nochri? This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It teaches about even if the Nochri
          will pay Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> See how foolish are those who lend
          on Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven calls Shimon 'evil', Shimon will fight him
               as if he came to kill him. One who lends on Ribis
               brings witnesses and a scribe to write (a document
               that proves that) he denies Hash-m!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> '(One who did not lend
          on Ribis or take bribes) Lo Yimot l'Olam.' This implies
          that if one lends on Ribis, his property will falter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We see people who do not lend on Ribis and
               falter!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They falter and recover. People who lend on
               Ribis falter and never recover.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Huna):</font></b> 'B'Vala Rasha Tzadik Mimenu' - a Rasha can
          destroy someone more righteous than himself, but he
          cannot destroy a perfect Tzadik.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> I do not understand the Ger Tzedek
          written regarding sale (of a Yisrael slave) and the Ger
          Toshav written regarding Ribis (this will be explained).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a sale it says '(when your brother will be
               sold) Lach'; and not (only) to you (a native
               Yisrael), rather (even) 'l'Ger'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He will be sold not (only) to a Ger Tzedek, rather
               (even) to a Ger Toshav, for it says 'Toshav';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'Mishpachas Ger' is a Nochri. 'L'Eker' is one sold
               to service an idol.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> We learn from 'l'Ger' that a convert can
          acquire a Yisrael slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> A convert cannot be acquired to
          be a Yisrael slave, nor can a woman or convert acquire a
          Yisrael slave.(This was Rebbi's difficulty.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot be acquired, for we cannot fulfill 'v'Shav
               El Mishpachto';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A woman cannot acquire a Yisrael slave, for it would
               be improper;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> A convert cannot acquire, for a tradition from Moshe
               from Sinai teaches that whoever cannot be acquired
               for a Yisrael slave cannot acquire a Yisrael slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A convert cannot acquire a
          Yisrael slave like a Yisrael acquires, but he can acquire
          like a Nochri acquires.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A Nirtza (one whose ear was bored through
               because he wanted to remain a slave after his six
               years expired) or one who was sold to a Nochri, if
               his master dies he does not serve the master's son
               or daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> The Beraisa says that a woman or convert
          cannot acquire a Yisrael slave. This is unlike R. Shimon
          ben Gamliel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman may acquire female slaves, but
               not male slaves;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may even acquire
               male slaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, it is even like R. Shimon. He permits her
          to acquire only male Kena'ani slaves, for she would not
          sin with them (lest word spread);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She cannot acquire male Yisrael slaves, who are
               proper. She could sin with them without fear lest
               word spread.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Yosef's Beraisa):</font></b> A widow may not raise a
          dog nor host a Talmid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand why we are concerned for a Talmid, he
               is proper;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We should not be concerned for a dog. She fear to
               sin with it, lest it follow her around (revealing
               the matter)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> People would attribute this to the fact that she
          is always feeding it meat.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>RIBIS FROM NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	It says regarding Ribis:</font></b> 'Ger v'Soshav... do not take
          Ribis from him.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> We may borrow from or lend to a
          Nochri or Ger Toshav on Ribis. .(This was Rebbi's
          difficulty.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It does not say 'do
          not take from them (everyone in the Parshah)', rather
          'me'Ito' (from your brother (a Yisrael) mentioned
          earlier).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Al Tikach me'Ito', but you may be an Arev
          (guarantor) for him.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: LENDING WITH INTEREST TO A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav Huna (70b) that one who lends with interest to a Nochri will be punished by losing all of his assets. The Gemara challenges Rav Nachman's statement from the Mishnah (70b) that states that 'we may borrow from them (Nochrim) and lend to them with Ribis.' Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna answers that when the Mishnah permits one to lend to Nochrim with interest, it refers only to when it as necessary to do so in order to support oneself, 'Kedei Chayav' (but not to enrich oneself). The Chachamim permitted one to lend to Nochrim with interest where that is one's means of support, but they prohibited profiting more than one's basic needs through usury to Nochrim.
</p><p>
Ravina answers that the Mishnah refers only to Talmidei Chachamim. A Talmid Chacham is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest because he will not be drawn after the ways of the Nochrim as a result of doing business with them.
</p><p>
According to the answer of Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, does the allowance to lend to Nochrim with interest for the sake of one's livelihood apply only to an Am ha'Aretz or even to a Talmid Chacham? Similarly, according to Ravina, who answers that a Talmid Chacham is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest, is an Am ha'Aretz prohibited from lending to a Nochri with interest even for the sake of supporting himself?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that according to Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, the reason why the Chachamim prohibited lending with interest to Nochrim for the purpose of profiting more than one's basic needs is that one might become habituated to lending with interest and lend even to Jews. Based on this reasoning, the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> (5:207) writes that according to Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna <i>all</i> people, including Talmidei Chachamim, are prohibited from lending with interest to Nochrim for more than one's basic needs.
</p><p>
According to Ravina, who maintains that the concern is that one might be drawn after the ways of the Nochrim, the prohibition against lending with interest to Nochrim applies only to an Am ha'Aretz, and even to lending with interest in order to support oneself. A Talmid Chacham, however, is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest to Nochrim as much as he wants, since there is no concern that he will be drawn after their ways.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (Kisvei Yad, as printed in the Or Zaru'a and other places) writes, 'When the Mishnah states that we may lend to them with Ribis, Rav Chiya explains that this refers only to profiting enough to support oneself, <i>and this applies only to Talmidei Chachamim who will not learn from the ways of the Nochrim, but for everyone else it is prohibited</i>.' The Or Zaru'a there (5:208) writes that Rabeinu Chananel understands that Ravina is not arguing with Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, but that he is explaining Rav Chiya's explanation of the Mishnah as applicable only to Talmidei Chachamim. Everyone agrees that an Am ha'Aretz is prohibited from lending to Nochrim with interest, even for the sake of supporting himself.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b>, however, understands Rabeinu Chananel's words differently. The Ramban explains that Rabeinu Chananel does not mean that Ravina is explaining Rav Chiya's answer, but rather Rabeinu Chananel means that Ravina argues with Rav Chiya, but Rabeinu Chananel has a doubt about whom the Halachah follows, and thus he rules stringently in accordance with both answers. (The Ramban challenges the view of Rabeinu Chananel.)
</p><p>
The Ramban himself writes that although Ravina and Rav Chiya disagree, the Halachah follows both opinions <i>to be lenient</i>. Consequently, all people (even Amei ha'Aretz) may lend to Nochrim with interest in order to support themselves, while lending with interest in order to profit more is prohibited for Amei ha'Aretz but permitted for Talmidei Chachamim. This is also the view of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 5:2), the <b>TUR</b>, and <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 159:1).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (70b, DH Sashich) asks why the common practice today is to lend to Nochrim with interest with no limitations. Even if we rule leniently in accordance with both views (Rav Chiya and Ravina), nevertheless only a Talmid Chacham should be permitted to profit more than his basic needs, while for all others it should be prohibited.
</p><p>
1. In his first answer, Tosfos writes that since the Gemara records an alternate rendition of Rav Huna's statement in which Rav Huna does not prohibit lending with interest to Nochrim at all, the answers of Rav Chiya and Ravina do not apply. Since the matter involves only an Isur d'Rabanan, we rule leniently and follow the second version of Rav Huna's statement, and thus lending to Nochrim with interest is permitted without limitations.
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, Tosfos writes that even if we rule in accordance with the first version of Rav Huna's statement (that lending with interest to Nochrim is prohibited), there are grounds to justify the common practice of lending without restrictions. Tosfos explains that lending with interest to Nochrim is permitted today because of the burden of the taxes of the king and the officers upon the Jews, and thus all profit is considered 'Kedei Chayav,' basic needs.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos writes further that, to our distress, we live today among the nations and it is not possible to support ourselves without dealing with the Nochrim. Therefore, the reason to prohibit lending to Nochrim with interest because one might be drawn after their ways does not apply nowadays (any more than it applies to any other business dealings with Nochrim).
</p><p>
The <b>TUR</b> and <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (loc. cit.) rule in accordance with the view that nowadays lending with interest to Nochrim is permitted without restrictions.
</p><p>
However, contemporary authorities have questioned whether the allowance to lend with interest to Nochrim without restrictions is applicable today in Eretz Yisrael. The answer of Tosfos that it is permitted only because we live among the nations does not apply today in Eretz Yisrael, where one can support himself entirely through business dealings with other Jews. Moreover, perhaps Tosfos permitted it only in his times, when lending with interest was a primary source of income, while today it is not a primary source of income, and thus perhaps there is reason not to be lenient (see <b>SEFER KELALA D'RIVISA</b>). (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PAYING RIBIS TO OTHERS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Levi holds that the seller's Keli is used
               for Chalipin. With the pleasure he gets that the
               buyer accepted his Keli, he resolves to give the
               land.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 71b (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven wanted to return what he
               borrowed from a Nochri (Tony) on Ribis, and, and
               Shimon said 'give the money to me, and I will pay
               you (later, with additional Ribis) like you must pay
               to Tony', this is forbidden. If Tony was there and
               he authorized Reuven to give to Shimon, this is
               permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> The case is, Reuven returned the money
               to Tony, who gave it to Shimon. One might have
               thought that Tony acts on Reuven's behalf when he
               gives to Shimon (and mid'Rabanan, we consider Tony
               to be his Shali'ach and this is forbidden). The
               Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kidushin 7a (Rava):</font></b> If Leah told Reuven 'give money
               to Ploni, and I will be Mekudeshes to you', we learn
               from an Arev (guarantor) that this works. An Arev
               obligates himself, even though he does not benefit.
               Likewise, Leah can be Makneh (transfer ownership of)
               herself to Reuven without receiving the money.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif (42a):</font></b> Rav Papa permits only if Reuven returned
               the money to Tony, who gave it to Shimon. If Reuven
               himself gave the money to Shimon, even in front of
               Tony and on his command, it is forbidden, for a
               Nochri has no Shlichus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:53):</font></b> Since Tony did not exempt Reuven,
               Shimon pays for Reuven the Ribis he needed to pay.
               Therefore, it is forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Teshuvah 108:13):</font></b> The Rif explains that there
               is no Heter if Reuven gives to Shimon, even if
               Shimon would pay Tony. If Moshe lends to David on
               condition that David pay Ribis to a Nochri, it is
               Ribis as if David paid to Moshe, even if Moshe did
               not owe Ribis to the Nochri. It is as if David gives
               to Moshe, like we say about Kidushin. The Gemara
               discussed paying Reuven to teach the Heter when Tony
               took back the money. If Reuven gave directly to
               Shimon, it is Ribis Ketzuzah and must be returned.
               Since Reuven has Achrayus (responsibility), it is as
               if he lent his money to Shimon. The Gemara did not
               give a Heter if Shimon wrote a document obligating
               himself to Tony; it seems that it does not help. The
               Yerushalmi says that there is no Heter when Reuven
               has Achrayus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 5:3):</font></b> If Reuven borrowed from
               Tony on Ribis, and Shimon said 'give to me the
               money, and I will pay you like you must pay to
               Tony', this is Ribis Ketzuzah. It is permitted only
               if Tony took back his money and gave it to Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 71b DH Motz'o):</font></b> Why
               does the Beraisa forbid Shimon to pay to Reuven like
               Reuven must pay to Tony? Even if Shimon will pay
               Tony directly, it is permitted only if the Nochri
               authorized it! One may not lend to a Yisrael on
               condition that the Yisrael pay more to someone else!
               This is forbidden even if Reuven does not owe the
               one who will receive! Giving to a recipient is like
               giving to the lender, due to the law of Arev!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Tosfos):</font></b> Indeed, it is forbidden even if
               Shimon will pay Tony directly. The Beraisa teaches
               the Chidush that even when he pays Reuven, it is
               permitted if the Nochri authorized it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Ashri (5:47):</font></b> Levi may not say to David
               'give three Zuz to Ploni, and I will lend to you.'
               Giving to Ploni on Levi's command is like giving to
               Levi, due to the law of an Arev (guarantor).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (327,328):</font></b> If Reuven borrowed from the
               Gabai Tzedakah on Ribis Ketzuzah (and could not
               evade paying it) and gave securities, and later
               Shimon asked to take the principal and he will pay
               all that Reuven needed to, this is Ribis Ketzutzah.
               If Shimon pays more than he received, it is
               returned. Even if Reuven says 'I will lend to you,
               if you will pay one Zuz to Levi', this is Ribis
               Ketzutzah. This is unlike Moshe paying David so he
               will lend to Ploni or tell Ploni to lend to Moshe.
               Here, Shimon pays Reuven's debt, more than he
               received from Reuven. Reuven may not lend 100 to
               Shimon on condition that Shimon pay 20 to Hekdesh
               and return the 100 to Reuven. What he pays due to
               the lender's command is as if he returns to the
               lender, like we say regarding Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (57b DH Lesapek):</font></b> If Reuven lent 100 to
               Shimon on condition that Shimon pay 120 to Hekdesh,
               this is Ribis mid'Oraisa, due to the law of Arev.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 160:14):</font></b> One may not say 'I will
               lend to you 100 (Zuz), on condition that you give
               one to Ploni (Rema - or to Hekdesh), even if Ploni
               is a Nochri, even though he does not owe to him.
               This is Ribis Ketzutzah (he stipulated how much to
               give in order that he will lend to him).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Kosav):</font></b> The Mordechai forbids
                    lending 100 to Hekdesh on condition to get back
                    120, and all the more so to lend to a person on
                    condition that he will pay back 100 and give 20
                    to Hekdesh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> It is the same if the lender said so, or the
               borrower said so and the lender lends for this
               reason.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (19):</font></b> The Mordechai says that it must be
                    returned because the lender stipulated.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Mishneh l'Melech (Hilchos Malveh 5:14 DH v'Im):
                    All the Poskim say so. Why did the Rosh (5:53)
                    forbid 'because Reuven owed the Nochri'? In any
                    case it is forbidden due to the law of an Arev!
                    Perhaps this is only when the lender owed Ploni
                    or asked to give to Ploni, but we permit if the
                    borrower suggested giving to Ploni. Why should
                    we suspect that the lender considers this as if
                    he himself received?! Alternatively, in the
                    Rosh's case the Nochri lends only on Ribis. If
                    Shimon were not paying Reuven's debt, we would
                    say that he pays only to the Nochri. If so, in
                    a normal case a borrower may not say that he
                    will give to Ploni if Reuven lends to him. If a
                    man asked to be Mekadesh a woman, and she told
                    him to throw it to the sea, Rishonim argue
                    about this (brought in Tur EH 30). It is not
                    clear if they similarly argue about Ribis in
                    such a case.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Ritva (69b Sof DH Omar, citing the Ramban):
                    Even if one told Levi 'throw a Zuz to the sea,
                    and I wil lend to you', this is Ribis Ketzuzah,
                    for it is as if the money came to Levi and he
                    threw it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yad Avraham (YD 166:2):</font></b> The Gemara (60b) could
                    not find Neshech (the borrower loses) without
                    Tarbis (the lender gains). Here, it is as if
                    the lender received the money, due to the law
                    of Arev, so there is Tarbis.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> I do not understand why this should be
                    forbidden more than a standard loan with a
                    document, in which the borrower pays the
                    scribe.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> Machaneh Efrayim (Hilchos Malveh 11 DH Ivra):
                    The Rambam holds that Kidushin works through
                    Tovas Hana'ah (it is worth money to her for
                    Ploni to receive due to her). If Levi told
                    David 'give a Dinar to Ploni, and I will lend
                    to you' he would obligate Levi to return only
                    his Tovas Hana'ah. Tosfos says that Kidushin
                    works because it is as if she received the
                    money; here, he would obligate Levi to return
                    the Dinar. However, perhaps Tosfos says so only
                    about Kidushin, in which he must give to her.
                    Here, the loan does not depend on giving to
                    Ploni. It is a mere gift. Levi 'receives' only
                    Tovas Hana'ah. The Ritva explains Kidushin like
                    the Rambam. Why does he say here that it is as
                    if the money came to Levi? If Levi told David
                    'give a Dinar to Ploni <i>for a gift</i>, and I will
                    lend to you', all agree that it is not Ribis
                    Ketzuzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (169:1):</font></b> If Reuven borrowed from Tony
               on Ribis, and Shimon said 'give to me the money, and
               I will pay you like you must pay to Tony', it is
               forbidden. This is even if Shimon wrote a document
               obligating himself to Tony, gave securities and gave
               the Ribis to Tony.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Birkei Yosef:</font></b> The Tur connotes that if Reuven
                    had no Achrayus, e.g. he borrowed with a
                    security and Tony relies solely on the
                    security, Shimon may take the money and pay
                    later to Tony like Reuven needed to. The
                    Shulchan Aruch (Sa'if 17) says so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Everything he paid to Tony, Reuven must pay
               back to Shimon, for it is Ribis Ketzuzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chavos Ya'ir (190):</font></b> If Shimon was unable to pay his
               loan and Reuven demanded an Arev, and Shimon
               promised to give to Levi a Dinar each month if he
               will agree to be an Arev, this is permitted.
               However, if Reuven knew that he cannot find an Arev
               other than Levi, and he intended that Levi will
               profit, this is like 'give a Dinar to Ploni and I
               will lend to you', which is forbidden. There is no
               difference whether this was at the beginning of the
               loan or not, just the Rambam holds that if there was
               no stipulation at the beginning, it is only Avak
               Ribis. However, if the time for payment came and
               Levi paid Reuven and now Levi asks Shimon to pay
               him, he may no longer accept money for giving Shimon
               time to pay, for this is Ribis Ketzuzah according to
               Rashi, and Avak Ribis according to the Rambam. This
               is when it was initially a loan. If a debt did not
               come from a loan, rather it was wages, or he owed
               due to Ma'amad Sheloshtam or Shibud d'R. Noson, or
               one collected documents for his loan and now tries
               to collect them, or a creditor took a buyer's
               property and he demands compensation from the
               seller, Ploni may give money to appease the one to
               whom he owes to give to him time to pay.
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>A DOCUMENT WITH RIBIS </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> For which lender may he be an Arev?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The lender is a Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A Mishnah teaches that the lender,
               borrower, Arev and witnesses transgress an Aseh!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Rather, the lender is a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to Nochri law, the lender may demand
          payment from the Arev (for the lender gives the money to
          the Arev, who then lends the borrower). In effect, the
          Arev lends to the borrower (a Yisrael) on Ribis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The case is, the Nochri agreed to
          abide by Torah law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, he should not take Ribis!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He accepted Torah law regarding
          whom he claims from, but not regarding Ribis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>LENDING A NOCHRI'S MONEY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We may lend a Nochri's money according to his
          will, but not according to the Yisrael's.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We may lend a Nochri's money according to his
          will, but not according to the Yisrael's. E.g. if Reuven
          borrowed from a Nochri (Tony) on Ribis, and wanted to
          return the money, and Shimon found him and said 'give to
          me the money, and I will pay you (later, with additional
          Ribis) like you must pay to Tony', this is forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Tony was there and he authorized Reuven to give
               to Shimon, this is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Similarly, if Tony borrowed from Levi on Ribis, and
          wanted to return the money, and Shimon found him and said
          'give to me the money, and I will pay you like you must
          pay to Levi', this is permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Levi was there and he authorized Tony to give to
               Shimon, this is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> (Mid'Oraisa, a Yisrael cannot make a Nochri his
          Shali'ach or be a Nochri's Shali'ach.) We understand the
          Seifa. When Levi is there, we are stringent (mid'Rabanan,
          we consider Tony to be the Shali'ach of Levi, therefore
          it is forbidden);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But in the Reisha, why is it permitted in front of
               Tony?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reuven is not Tony's Shali'ach. Reuven himself lends
               to Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach):</font></b> The case is, Tony told
          Reuven 'leave the money on the rock and you are exempt'
          (and Shimon picked them up from the rock).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> If so, obviously this is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The case is, Reuven returned the
          money to Tony, who gave it to Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If so, obviously this is permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that Tony acts on
               Reuven's behalf when he gives to Shimon (and
               mid'Rabanan, we consider Tony to be his Shali'ach
               and this is forbidden). The Mishnah teaches that
               this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (Really, Reuven was
          Tony's Shali'ach to give the money to Shimon.) We say
          that a Nochri cannot be (or make) a Shali'ach only for
          Terumah, but for other matters, he can!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is wrong!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach regarding Terumah, 
               for we learn from 'Gam Atem' - just like you are
               bound by the covenant (of circumcision, i.e. Yisrael
               or a slave), also your Sheluchim must be;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We learn from Terumah that Sheluchim work in 
               general!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (Really, Reuven was
          Tony's Shali'ach to give the money to Shimon.) We say
          only that a Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach for a Yisrael,
          but a Yisrael can be a Shali'ach for a Nochri!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> That is wrong!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learn that a Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach for a
               Yisrael from 'Gam Atem' - just like you are bound by
               the covenant, also your Sheluchim must be;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is our source that Sheluchim work. We learn
               that only Atem (Yisrael) can have Sheluchim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (Ravina):</font></b> (Really, Reuven gave the money to
          Shimon.) Granted, a Nochri cannot have a Shali'ach, but
          (mid'Rabanan - some delete this from the text), he has
          Zechiyah (a Yisrael can acquire something for him. Shimon
          acquires the money for Tony, and he borrows it back from
          Tony.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like we find regarding minors. Even though a
               minor cannot have a Shali'ach, he has Zechiyah
               (mid'Rabanan - some delete this). The same applies
               to Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No. A minor (Yisrael) can be a Shali'ach when
          he matures, so he has Zechiyah even when he is a minor. A
          Nochri can never be a Shali'ach, so he does not have
          Zechiyah.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) A 'NOCHRI' ACTING AS A 'SHALI'ACH' FOR A JEW</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa (in the Seifa) teaches that when a Nochri borrows money with interest from a Jew, the Nochri may not lend that money to a Jew with interest when the original lender consents. The Gemara explains the Nochri is viewed as the Shali'ach of the Jew, and thus it is as if the Jew is lending money to another Jew with interest. Although, normally, a Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach for a Jew, the Chachamim enacted that he <i>can</i> be a Shali'ach for a Jew when being a Shali'ach will result in a stringency (such as in this case, where considering the Nochri to be the Shali'ach of the Jewish lender results in a Chumra that the Nochri may not lend the money to another Jew). (Although the act that the Shali'ach is doing is an act of an Aveirah, and there is a principle that 'Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah,' the Gemara earlier (10b) cites an opinion that when the Shali'ach who performs the act is not prohibited to do that Aveirah, 'Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah' does not apply.)
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (Shabbos 153b) and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> maintain that the Gemara's statement here is the Halachah, and a Nochri <i>does</i> have the status of a Shali'ach for a Jew where it results in a Chumra.
</p><p>
The <b>TESHUVOS PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (YD 2) quotes <b>HA'GA'ON RABEINU REBBI HESHEL</b> who asks that if the Halachah is that a Nochri can be a Shali'ach for a Jew when it is l'Chumra, then why is a special prohibition of 'Amirah l'Nochri' needed with regard to Shabbos (see later, 90a)? A Jew should not be allowed to tell a Nochri to do Melachah on Shabbos because of the Halachah that the Nochri can be a Shali'ach for the Jew when it is a Chumra; if the Nochri does the Melachah at the behest of the Jew, it is considered as though the Jew himself does the Melachah. Why is a special enactment of 'Amirah l'Nochri' necessary to prohibit a Jew from telling a Nochri to do Melachah on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BEIS MEIR</b> (#5) and <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (OC 84) answer that with regard to doing a Melachah on Shabbos, it is not possible to make the Jew liable for a Melachah done through Shelichus. Only when the very action itself constitutes a repulsive act before Hash-m is the Nochri's act on behalf of the Jew attributed to the Jew. The act of a Melachah on Shabbos is not an intrinsically repulsive act. Melachah is forbidden on Shabbos in order for a Jew to rest on Shabbos from constructive labor ('l'Ma'an Yanu'ach'). For this reason, one is permitted mid'Oraisa to place a pot of raw food on the flame before Shabbos in order that it cook on Shabbos. Hence, when a Nochri does a Melachah at the behest of a Jew, even if the Nochri is considered the Jew's Shali'ach, the Jew himself is resting from Melachah and is fulfilling the requirement of 'l'Ma'an Yanu'ach,' and thus the Jew has done no Aveirah. Therefore, it is necessary to have a special prohibition of 'Amirah l'Nochri' on Shabbos to prohibit a Jew from telling a Nochri to do Melachah.
</p><p>
(However, the <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Shabbos #55, Bava Kama #20) proves that the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in Bava Kama (10a of the pages of the Rif) does not agree with this approach. The Nimukei Yosef asks that one should be prohibited to kindle the Shabbos candles before nightfall on Erev Shabbos since they will continue to burn during Shabbos, and the principle of 'Isho Mishum Chitzo' teaches that whenever a flame burns it is as if the person lit the fire at that moment. According to the Beis Meir and Chasam Sofer, the question of the Nimukei Yosef is not a question, because the person himself did no action but rather rested from Melachah on Shabbos, and the action happened on its own.) (I. Alsheich)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO CONVERTS AMIDST A LOAN ON RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven borrowed money from a Nochri on Ribis.
          They calculated how much he owes (principal and Ribis
          combined), and wrote a document for this amount. The
          Nochri converted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he converted after they made the calculation, he
               collects it all;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he converted before they made the calculation, he
               collects only the principal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Similarly, if Reuven lent to a Nochri on Ribis, and they
          calculated how much he owes and wrote a document for this
          amount, and the Nochri converted:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he converted after they made the calculation, he
               pays it all;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he converted before they made the calculation, he
               pays only the principal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi says, if a Nochri borrowed, in either case he
          pays it all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> R. Yosi's law is an enactment, lest people say
          that he converted in order to be exempt from the Ribis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY AN INVALID DOCUMENT BE USED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a document is for a loan on
          Ribis, we fine the lender, and he cannot use it to
          collect even principal;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Chachamim say, he can use it to collect principal, but
          not Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> R. Meir fines the permitted part due to the
          forbidden part. Chachamim do not fine the permitted part
          due to the forbidden part.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Predated loan documents are invalid. Postdated
          documents are valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why are predated documents invalid?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, they may not be used to collect from the
               date written, but they should be valid to collect
               from the date of the loan!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Indeed, Chachamim say that they
          may be used to collect from the date of the loan. This
          Mishnah is R. Meir (who fines the permitted part due to
          the forbidden part).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Chachamim admit in this case. It
          is a decree, lest he come to collect from the written
          date.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	A case occurred in which Shimon gave his orchard to
          Reuven to be collateral for a loan. Reuven ate the Peros
          for three years, and threatened 'if you do not sell it to
          me, I will conceal the document that says that it was
          collateral, and I will claim that I bought it.' (Eating
          three years is a Chazakah, so he would be believed.)
          Shimon transferred ownership of the orchard to his son (a
          minor), then Shimon sold it to Reuven. Clearly, the sale
          to Reuven is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is the money Reuven paid like a loan with a
          document (the Acharayus entitles him to collect from
          Meshubadim)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Or, is it like a Milveh Al Peh, which cannot be
               collected from Meshubadim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We learn this from R. Asi's law!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS A CONVERT OBLIGATED TO PAY A DEBT OF INTEREST THAT HE OWES TO A JEW FROM BEFORE HIS CONVERSION?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa discusses the case of a Nochri who borrowed money from a Jew with Ribis, and then became a Ger. The borrower agreed with the lender that they would calculate the entire sum of money that he owed to the lender, and they would write in a Shtar that the borrower owes this amount to the lender. The Tana Kama says that the Halachah depends on whether the new Shtar was made before the Nochri became a Ger or afterwards. If it was made before the Nochri became a Ger, the Jewish lender may collect the entire sum, including the Ribis, even after the Nochri converts. If the new Shtar was made only after the Nochri became a Ger, the Jew may collect only the principal amount of the loan, not the Ribis. Rebbi Yosi argues that the Jew may collect all of the money, regardless of when the new Shtar was made. Rava explains that Rebbi Yosi's reasoning is that people should not say that the Nochri became a Ger in order to avoid paying his outstanding debt of Ribis.
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Yosi, when the new Shtar is made after the Nochri becomes a Ger, must the borrower (the Ger) pay the Ribis which accrued even after his conversion?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> explicitly states that the Ger must pay his fellow Jew even the Ribis that accrued after he became a Jew. Why is this not considered a transgression of the Torah prohibition of Ribis? The Rosh explains that the Rabanan have the authority to uproot a Torah prohibition even if doing so means that a person will actively perform an act which the Torah prohibits (see Yevamos 89b).
</p><p>
The <b>TIFERES SHMUEL</b> questions why the Rosh considers this to be forbidden Ribis. Since the amount of interest was set at a time when the lender was permitted to charge interest (that is, when the borrower was a Nochri), what Torah prohibition is there when the borrower pays the Ribis, even Ribis that accrued after his conversion? No one transgressed the main component of the prohibition of Ribis (setting the terms of the interest)! <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Bava Metzia) comments that the words of the Tiferes Shmuel are difficult to understand. The prohibition of Ribis involves one Jew paying another Jew interest, not merely setting a rate of interest, and thus the Rosh's question certainly is justified.
</p><p>
(b) Although the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 5:6) rules like Rebbi Yosi that the Ger must pay his fellow Jew the interest of the loan after he converts, he adds that Rebbi Yosi refers only to the interest which accrued <i>before</i> the borrower's conversion. Rebbi Yosi agrees that the Ger does not pay the interest that accrued after he became a Jew, for this would constitute the Torah prohibition of Ribis. The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 171) rules in accordance with the view of the Rambam (which he also quotes in the name of the <b>RAMAH</b> and the <b>TALMIDEI HA'RASHBA</b>). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO NOCHRIM HAVE ZECHIYAH OR SHELICHUS?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 71b (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Nochri (Tony) wanted to return
               his loan on Ribis to Levi, and Shimon said 'give to
               me the money, and I will pay you like you must pay
               to Levi', if Levi authorized him to do so, this is
               forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is a stringency.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - (Rav Ashi):</font></b> A Nochri cannot be (or
               make) a Shali'ach only for Terumah, but for other
               matters, he can!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> That is wrong! A Nochri cannot be a
               Shali'ach for Terumah, for we learn from 'Gam Atem'
               - just like you are Bnei Bris (bound by the covenant
               of circumcision, i.e. Yisrael or a slave), also your
               Sheluchim must be. We learn from Terumah that
               Sheluchim work in general!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (A Nochri cannot be a
               Yisrael's Shali'ach due to 'Gam Atem' - your
               Sheluchim must be Bnei Bris, just like you. This is
               our source for Shlichus. We learn that only Atem
               (Yisrael) can have Sheluchim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> Granted, a Nochri cannot have a Shali'ach,
               but (some texts - mid'Rabanan), he has Zechiyah (a
               Yisrael can acquire for him).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> We find that even though a minor cannot have a
               Shali'ach, he has Zechiyah (some texts -
               mid'Rabanan). The same applies to Nochrim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No. A minor (Yisrael) can be a Shali'ach
               when he matures, so he has Zechiyah even when he is
               a minor. A Nochri can never be a Shali'ach, so he
               does not have Zechiyah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avodah Zarah 71a (Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven may not tell a
               Nochri 'go in my place to (pay) the king's officer'
               (to pay my debt with Yayin Nesech).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesuvos 11a (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a minor wants to convert,
               we immerse him (in a Mikveh to convert him) on the
               volition of Beis Din.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> This is because Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Shluchim 2:1):</font></b> A Nochri cannot be a
               Shali'ach for anything. A Yisrael cannot be a
               Nochri's Shali'ach for anything. It says 'you will
               take Terumah Gam Atem' - just like you are Bnei
               Bris, also your Sheluchim must be. The same applies
               to the entire Torah. Also, the Meshale'ach must be a
               Yisrael in the entire Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Gitin 1:17):</font></b> (Chachamim enacted Ma'amad
               Sheloshtam, that if Reuven tells his Shomer (or
               borrower) to give the deposit (or loan) to Levi', if
               all are there, Levi acquires.) R. Tam says that this
               was enacted for Yisrael, but not for Nochrim. The Ri
               says that if the Shomer (or borrower) was a Nochri
               and the giver and receiver were Yisre'elim, it does
               not work, for Ma'amad Sheloshtam is no better than
               proper Zechiyah; a Nochri cannot be Zocheh. If the
               recipient was a Nochri and the giver and Shomer were
               Yisre'elim, as long as the giver agrees to give it,
               the recipient may do so, but the giver can retract,
               for there was no Kinyan. If the giver was a Nochri
               and the recipient and Shomer were Yisre'elim, the
               recipient acquired. If Chachamim uproot a Yisrael's
               money through Ma'amad Sheloshtam, all the more so
               they uproot a Nochri's.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:27):</font></b> Bahag says that if a Nochri brought a
               Get and gave it to a Yisrael to give to the wife in
               front of Edei Mesirah (witnesses), l'Chatchilah she
               may not marry, for divorce does not apply to
               Nochrim. B'Di'eved it is Kosher, like R. Shimon (who
               say that Edei Mesirah empower a Get). This is
               astounding! If the Nochri appointed the Yisrael to
               give it, it is Pasul even b'Di'eved, for a Nochri
               cannot be a Shali'ach; also, divorce does not apply
               to him. If he delivered a document appointing the
               Yisrael to give it, it is Kosher, for he merely
               delivered it, like a monkey could. R. Tam often sent
               a Get or Kidushin in this way! The Yerushalmi says
               that (when the Nochri appoints the Yisrael) there is
               not even a scent of a Get (if her husband will die,
               she may marry a Kohen).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashi (Bava Metzia 71b DH Bishlomo):</font></b> Mid'Rabanan, we
               are stringent to say that a Nochri can be a
               Yisrael's Shali'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Malveh 5:6):</font></b> R. Chananel
               says that mid'Rabanan, we are stringent to say that
               a Nochri is a Yisrael's Shali'ach (e.g. for Ribis).
               R. Tam says that he is not a Shali'ach even to be
               stringent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Tosfos (Kidushin 3a DH v'Ishahm citing R. Tam):</font></b> One
               can give Harsha'ah (power of attorney) to a Nochri,
               but the Nochri must do Chalipin himself, for the
               witnesses cannot be Zocheh for him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Tur (CM 123:15):</font></b> We say that Harsha'ah is
                    Shlichus; this means only that the Shali'ach
                    cannot keep the money for himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Terumas ha'Deshen (313):</font></b> Rav Nachman (Bava Metzia
               66b) says that if Reuven sold the fruits that will
               grow on his tree, he can retract even after they
               grow, but if the buyer ate them, he need not pay.
               The Rosh (5:32) says that R. Tam learns from here
               that if one sold a loan document through Mesirah
               (giving it over) alone, and the buyer collected the
               debt, the seller can no longer retract. Even though
               one acquires a document only through writing another
               document and Mesirah, since the buyer already
               consumed, we do not take from him. The same applies
               if Levi authorized David to collect Levi's debt from
               a Nochri. Levi can retract until David collects it.
               The Rosh holds like R. Tam only when the seller knew
               about the collection, for he pardons it. If not, the
               borrower still owes the seller, for he should not
               have paid one who did not properly acquire the debt.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 126:22):</font></b> Some say that Ma'amad
               Sheloshtam works with a Nochri Shomer or borrower.
               Some disagree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Tur:</font></b> The Rif holds that it works with a Nochri.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> In any case, if the Nochri already gave it to
               the recipient, we do not remove it from him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Shach 94):</font></b> This is not always true.
                    However, here it is true, for even without
                    Ma'amad Sheloshtam, since the giver authorized
                    him to give and he did his Shlichus, it is as
                    if the giver himself gave.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ketzos ha'Choshen 15):</font></b> Why does it
                    help here? A Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach!
                    Surely, if one told a Nochri to give something
                    to Ploni, Ploni does not acquire, for Ein
                    Shlichus l'Nochri! If one made a Nochri a
                    Shali'ach to sell his Chametz, it is invalid;
                    he transgresses owning Chametz during Pesach,
                    and it becomes forbidden! It is no better here
                    because he told the recipient to take it. Since
                    it was not in the giver's Reshus, it is like
                    Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam! The Terumas ha'Deshen
                    holds that Tefisah (seizure) helps whenever the
                    Kinyan did not work. If Reuven tells Shimon to
                    give to a Nochri, this is Shlichus. If he tells
                    a Nochri to give to Shimon, it works only due
                    to Tefisah. Shimon may keep it, but the Nochri
                    still owes Reuven. We learn from when Tony was
                    about to pay Levi, and Shimon asked to borrow
                    the money and pay the Ribis (Bava Metzia 71b).
                    We are <i>stringent</i> to forbid when Levi
                    authorizes this. If Tony no longer owes Levi,
                    letter of the law it is forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (188:1):</font></b> A Nochri cannot be a
               Shali'ach for anything. A Yisrael cannot be a
               Nochri's Shali'ach for anything.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Ein):</font></b> It is known that the
                    Halachah follows the latter version. The Rambam
                    rules like this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Shulchan Aruch (243:14):.A Nochri cannot be Zocheh,
               for he can never be a Shali'ach. Just like a Yisrael
               cannot be a Nochri's Shali'ach, he cannot be Zocheh
               for a Nochri.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (27):</font></b> A Nochri cannot be Zocheh for
                    another, since he cannot be a Shali'ach.
                    Similar, a Yisrael cannot be Zocheh for a
                    Nochri, since a Yisrael cannot be a Nochri's
                    Shali'ach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (YD 169 DH v'Im, citing Sefer
                    ha'Terumos):</font></b> One cannot be Zocheh for a Nochri.
                    Even a Nochri cannot be Zocheh for a Nochri.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Machaneh Efrayim (Shlichus 14):</font></b> Rashi holds
                    that we are stringent to say that a Nochri can
                    be a Yisrael's Shali'ach. This is why one may
                    not tell a Nochri 'pay my debt with your wine.'
                    The Ramban explains that the Yisrael paid the
                    Nochri, so he acquired the Yayin Nesech and
                    benefits from it. R. Tam holds that a Nochri is
                    not a Yisrael's Shali'ach at all, and a Yisrael
                    does not acquire from a Nochri with money!
                    (This is left difficult.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chavos Ya'ir (49):</font></b> According to the opinion
                    that we are stringent to say that a Nochri is a
                    Yisrael's Shali'ach, letter of the law one may
                    not tell a Nochri to tell another Nochri to do
                    Melachah on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 268:7):</font></b> If a minor orphan Nochri
               came to convert, Beis Din converts him, for Zachin
               l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A Nochri has no Zechiyah even
                    mid'Rabanan!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Tosfos and Hagahos Ashri 1:23):</font></b> One
                    who converts has Zechiyah mid'Rabanan, for he
                    will have Shelichus. Alternatively, he is like
                    a Yisrael regarding this Zechiyah because it
                    makes him a Yisrael.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer #2 (Tosfos Sanhedrin 68b DH Katan):</font></b> This
                    is unlike other Zechiyos. Beis Din does not
                    acquire for him. The convert acquires himself.
                    All Yisrael, including minors, converted at the
                    time of Matan Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (Ketzos ha'Choshen CM 243:7):</font></b> Beis Din is
               different. (It can be Zocheh even when a person
               could not.)
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>CAN A MINOR CONVERT MID'ORAISA? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Asi):</font></b> If Levi admits that he authorized a
               document, Yehudah can use it against him, and Levi
               cannot demand that he validate it. (Shimon admits
               that Reuven paid for the orchard, like the document
               says. It is invalid to acquire the orchard, but it
               shows that Shimon owes him money!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rava):</font></b> The case of the orchard is different,
          for there was no Heter to write the document!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> If so, why does R. Yochanan say that
          it is a decree not to collect from the latter date, lest
          he collect from the date written?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He should invalidate the document because there was
               no Heter to write it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Mereimar):</font></b> A predated document had a Heter to be
          written, i.e. with the date of the loan. There was no
          Heter to write the document of the orchard at all!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Compensation for improvements: if
          Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Levi, when
          David takes it back, Levi collects principal (what he
          paid) even from property that Yehudah sold, and
          improvements from Yehudah's Bnei Chorin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We should say that the document should never have
               been written, so it is invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One opinion holds that Yehudah does not want to
          be called a thief. The other opinion holds that he wants
          to act faithfully. Both agree that he will later buy the
          field from David to establish the document;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, Shimon wrote the document to prevent Reuven
               from keeping the field. Surely, he has no intent of
               fulfilling it!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONTRACTING TO GIVE PEROS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We may not contract to supply Peros for a set
          price until there is a set price (in the market);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Once there is a set price, even someone without
               Peros may contract, since other people have
               available Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Reuven may contract (to supply the finished product)
          before there is a set price, if he already has a stack of
          grain, a container of grapes or olives, clay formed to
          make pots, or wood and stones that were put in the
          furnace to make plaster;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	One may contract for manure all year round;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi permits only if he has a pile. Chachamim permit
          (in any case)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	He may contract at the cheap price;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, even if he did not contract at the cheap
          price, he can demand the cheap price or his money back.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - R. Asi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> We may not contract
          according to the price in the market.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Did R. Yochanan say that even
          regarding a great market?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Asi):</font></b> No, he said so only regarding a market
          of medium size cities, for the price is unstable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Zeira thought that perhaps R. Yochanan
               meant even a great market - if so, how does he
               establish the Mishnah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when people open their
               storehouses to sell and ships arrive with grain, for
               then the price is stable for a long time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> We may not contract to supply Peros for a
          fixed price until there is a set price. Once there is a
          set price, even someone without Peros may contract, since
          other people have.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If new grain was selling for four (Sa'im for a
               Sela), and old (dry) grain for three, one may not
               contract (to buy new grain for four, since when he
               gets it, it will be dry. This is forbidden) until
               the prices equalize (at four).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Leket (dropped grain that is left for poor people
               to take, which is inferior) was selling for four
               (Se'im for a Sela), and regular grain for three, one
               may not contract to buy regular grain for four until
               that becomes the price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may contract with one selling Leket
          according to the price for Leket.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> Do you permit because the seller could
          borrow from another seller of Leket?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also a regular seller could borrow from a seller of
               Leket!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A regular seller would not
          borrow from a seller of Leket (it is below his dignity).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One who buys from a regular
          seller pays for higher quality grain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Sheshes citing Rav Huna):</font></b> We
          may not borrow (money, on condition that if he does not
          repay regarding a fixed date, he will give Peros) based
          on the market price (of today, which is cheaper).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Bahag - (Rav Sheshes citing Rav Huna):</font></b> We
          may not borrow (a Se'ah on condition to return a Se'ah)
          even though there are Peros in the market. (One might
          have thought that since one can buy a Se'ah, it is as if
          the borrower has at home, in which case it is permitted.)
          (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Yosef bar Chama):</font></b> That contradicts another
          teaching of Rav Huna!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> May Talmidim borrow (Rashi - money; Bahag
               - Peros) in Tishrei and repay Peros in Teves (at the
               cheaper price of Teves)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Yes. The money could be used now
               to buy Peros elsewhere (Rashi - where it is cheap).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Originally, Rav Huna ruled that it was forbidden,
          until he heard that R. Shmuel bar Chiya permits it.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) PAYING THE BORROWER FOR HIS TROUBLE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa (end of 72b) discusses the case of a person who notices that his friend is going to sell merchandise in a place where he can receive a higher price for his goods, and he makes him an offer. Instead of his friend having to go from place to place to sell his merchandise, he will take it and sell it for him. However, he will keep as a loan the proceeds of the sales, and he will pay back the money at a later date. The Beraisa rules that if the merchandise remains in the possession of the original owner until it is sold, and the money becomes a loan only after the sale, such an arrangement is permitted. If, however, the merchandise is transferred to seller immediately, this arrangement is forbidden, because the merchandise in that place is worth less than the money that the borrower will pay back.
</p><p>
The Mishnah earlier (68a) teaches that a borrower may not work for free for his lender by selling merchandise for him. When the Beraisa here says that the transaction is permitted when the merchandise stays in the possession of the original owner until it is actually sold, does it mean that it is permitted only if the borrower is paid for selling the merchandise (as the Mishnah earlier states), or is this case different in some way from the case of the Mishnah earlier?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Reshus) says that the Beraisa permits this arrangement only when the seller (borrower) is paid for his work, as the Mishnah earlier states. If this, however, is the Beraisa's intention, then it is obvious. Since the Mishnah already permits such an arrangement, why does the Beraisa need to repeat it? Tosfos explains that the Beraisa mentions this Halachah only as an introduction to the following Halachah. The Beraisa says that if the merchandise is loaned immediately to the borrower before he reaches the place where it is more valuable, the arrangement is prohibited. Why would one have thought that it is permitted? Tosfos explains that one might have thought that since the normal way of doing business is to buy in a place where the merchandise is cheap and sell in a place where it is expensive, it is considered as though this merchandise has a higher value even in the place where it is cheap. This is why the Beraisa must teach that this arrangement nevertheless is considered Ribis.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> quotes the <b>RE'AH</b> who says that the lender does <i>not</i> have to pay the borrower to sell the goods. This is also the opinion of the <b>MORDECHAI</b> and the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b>. Three reasons are given to explain this opinion:
</p><p>
1. The Ritva explains that the case is where the borrower wants to gain a name as a seller of merchandise, and therefore he wants to sell things. In order to achieve his goals, he is willing to sell the other person's merchandise pro bono, even without receiving any loan.
</p><p>
The Ritva apparently understands that the case of the Beraisa is not comparable to the case of the Mishnah earlier because the Mishnah is discussing a person who is already an established merchant who does not want to be bothered selling merchandise without being paid.
</p><p>
2. The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 173) understands that according to this opinion, there was never any agreement that the seller would receive a loan. The seller just happens to borrow the money afterwards (see the Gemara earlier on 43a, 'Ma'os she'Einan Tzerurin,' for why this is permitted).
</p><p>
3. The <b>TAZ</b> (YD 173:24) explains that the seller exerts himself for the owner of the merchandise because he wants to receive the loan, and not because he wants to benefit the owner. Although the money the seller borrows is a considerable benefit to the seller, these Rishonim maintain that he may sell the merchandise (and borrow the money) as long as it is not done in order to benefit the lender. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISCOUNTS FOR PAYING IN ADVANCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven was carrying a bundle to a certain
          place. Shimon offered: 'I will take it and sell it for
          you. I will use the money, and later return to you
          according to what it sells for there':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven bears any losses on the way, it is
               permitted (Rashi - for it is not a loan until he
               sells it; Tosfos - Reuven must pay Shimon's toil and
               food);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Shimon bears any losses on the way, it is
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven was carrying Peros to a certain place.
          Shimon offered 'give them to me (to eat), and I will
          return the same amount to you there.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven has Peros there, it is permitted; if not,
               not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Donkey-drivers may borrow money on condition to (Rashi -
          use it and later) return Peros according to the lower
          price in a different city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi) Question:</font></b> Why is this allowed? (They
          work for the buyer without any pay, just use of his
          money!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The donkey-drivers gain. They
          become trustworthy in the eyes of sellers in the city
          where Peros are cheap. (On other occasions, they will
          give to them on credit.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (R. Chananel) Question:</font></b> Why is this allowed?
          (Even though they are paid, they bear any loss on the
          way.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> They gain. The buyers tell them
          where Peros are expensive. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika):</font></b> The sellers give a
          discount to the donkey-drivers (Rashi - they fear lest
          the donkey-drivers stop buying from them, since they are
          not paid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi) Answer:</font></b> They argue about a new donkey-
          driver. (The sellers start to trust him, but he does not
          get a discount.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer:</font></b> They argue about a new
          lender. (He does not know where the price is expensive,
          but the donkey-drivers still get a discount from the
          sellers).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Grain was selling for four (measures for a Zuz) in Sura,
          and for six in Kafri. Rav gave money (in Sura) to donkey-
          drivers (to bring from Kafri), he accepted to bear losses
          on the way. He took from them five measures per Zuz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He is allowed to take six!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> An important person should not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (R. Asi):</font></b> May this be done with (other
          merchandise such as) pieces of metal? (Perhaps the above
          reasons do not apply, for the donkey-drivers will not
          frequent the same sellers.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi
          Yosi wanted to do so with linen garments. Rebbi forbade
          him to.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Rebbi wanted to do so
          with pieces of metal. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi forbade
          him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>BENEFITS FOR PAYING IN ADVANCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden to give money (when grapes are
          immature) to receive mature grapes (later) at a low
          price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> This is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav forbids. Since they are worth more later, this
               resembles Ribis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel permits. Since the buyer bears losses that
               may occur to the crop, it does not look like Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Simi bar Chiya):</font></b> Rav admits about oxen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> In a vineyard harvested using
               oxen, this is permitted, because the oxen get caught
               in the vines and losses are common.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> Rav admits that it may give
               money (at a low price) for calves that will be born
               during the year, since miscarriages are common.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #3 (Rambam):</font></b> Rav admits that one may give
               money (at a low price) for calves to receive them
               when they are grown, for they often grow weak or
               die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> There were people who used to lend
          grain to their sharecroppers (for planting) and receive
          back (after it grew) new grain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> You must help them plow or harvest a bit (so
               you are entitled to wages). If not, this is a loan
               of a Se'ah on condition to return a Se'ah, which is
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> There were people who used to pay in
          advance to receive a greater value of vines after the
          harvest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> You must make an acquisition in the land now
               (to acquire the vines). If not, this is a loan, it
               is forbidden (since loss is not common).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	People who guard standing crops used to be paid after the
          grain was harvested and threshed. They received extra due
          to the delay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> (This is Ribis.) You must help a bit at the
               granary, in order that your work continues until
               then, for then there is no delay in your wages (to
               attribute the higher wage to it);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Wages are due to be paid only at the end of the
                    job.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabanan (to Rava):</font></b> You receive Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We rent fields for four Korim of grain, which we
               receive in Nisan. You receive six Korim a month
               later!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rava:</font></b> You act improperly!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The land belongs to the renter until the grain fully
               ripens. You may not make him leave in Nisan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> I receive rental when it is due, in Iyar.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS ONE OBLIGATED TO COMPENSATE ANOTHER PERSON WHOM HE PREVENTED FROM MAKING A PROFIT?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chama rules that when a person is appointed to purchase a certain quantity of a commodity (such as wine) for someone else at the present market price, and he is negligent and fails to purchase it and the price goes up, he must deliver the same quantity of wine that he could have bought at the lower price, compensating for the difference from his own funds. Rav Zevid qualifies Rav Chama's ruling and states that it applies only when the buyer told the agent to purchase wine, without specifying any particular winemaker's wine. If, however, he instructed the agent to buy for him specific wine, the agent is not responsible if he fails to buy the wine, because perhaps the winemaker would not have sold it to him. Rav Ashi argues and says that even if the buyer did not specify any particular wine, the agent is <i>not</i> responsible if he fails to buy wine at that price, because the agent's acceptance of responsibility was an Asmachta, and the Halachah is that an Asmachta is not binding.
</p><p>
Rav Chama, Rav Zevid, and Rav Ashi disagree about whether or not a Shali'ach's acceptance of responsibility for a lost opportunity for profit is considered an Asmachta. They would agree, however, that if an Asmachta <i>would</i> be binding, the Shali'ach would be obligated to compensate for the loss.
</p><p>
The Rishonim point out that this conflicts with the Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia 5:3) which states that one who 'ties up' another person's funds (rendering him unable to profit from them) is exempt and does not have to pay for the lost profit, because it is considered only a 'Gerama,' an indirect cause of loss to the owner of the money. In the case of the Gemara here, the Shali'ach's failure to buy the wine at the low price is an indirect cause of loss to the buyer. Why, then, should he be obligated to compensate for the loss (if not for the problem of Asmachta)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> offers two answers. In his first answer, he explains that the Gemara is discussing a specific case in which the Shali'ach -- upon taking the money -- agreed to pay for any loss that might result from his negligence. Since he made an explicit agreement, he is committed to honor that agreement (if not for the fact that it is an Asmachta). When the Shali'ach made no agreement, then indeed he is not obligated to compensate for the loss, as the Yerushalmi states, because it is a 'Gerama,' an indirect cause of loss, for which a person is exempt.
</p><p>
The reason why the Gemara does not mention that the Shali'ach explicitly made an agreement obligating himself to pay for any loss is that it is obvious that such an agreement was made; without such an agreement there is no reason to obligate the Shali'ach (as the Yerushalmi states).
</p><p>
(b) The Ritva answers further that even without a specific agreement to obligate himself, the Shali'ach would be obligated to pay for a loss caused by his negligence. The reason is that the Shali'ach is considered an Arev, a guarantor. In the case of an Arev who guarantees a loan, the Arev becomes obligated to repay the loan (if the borrower cannot) by virtue of the fact that the lender handed over money (to the borrower) only on the Arev's word that he would pay back the loan. Similarly, in the case of the Gemara here, the buyer gave the money to the Shali'ach only because of his reliance on the Shali'ach's word that he would purchase the wine for him. The Shali'ach, therefore, became an Arev for the money.
</p><p>
This answer has broad, practical ramifications. Any hired worker who quits his job and thereby causes a loss to his employer (by requiring the employer to pay more for a new worker) is liable to compensate for the loss based on the Halachah of Arev. This Halachah also applies in the converse case, in which the employer fires the worker, thereby causing the worker a loss. Since the worker agreed to work for this employer (and to forgo employment elsewhere) based on the employer's word that he would pay him, the employer is considered like an Arev who is responsible to pay the worker. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BUYING YISRE'ELIM FROM THE KING</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> There are Rabanan who pay the
               head-tax of people, and make them work for them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The king is master over all his
               subjects. He says that whoever pays Ploni's head-tax
               may make Ploni work for him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Se'oram (Rava's brother) used to grab indecent
               people and make them pull Rava's rickshaw.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If one does not act
               properly, you may force him to work for you -
               'l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu uv'Acheichem' (forever you
               will work with Kena'ani slaves and with your
               brothers)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is even if he acts
               properly!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Uv'Acheichem Bnei Yisrael (you may not
               work harshly).'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yevamos 46a - Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If one paid
               Ploni's tax and used him for a slave, does he need a
               document of freedom to go free?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He was the king's
               slave, and the king said that one who does not pay
               his own tax works for the one who paid it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gitin 38a:</font></b> We learn that a Nochri can acquire a
               Yisrael from 'they took a captive from us.'
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif brings the Gemara in Bava Metzia verbatim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (16a DH Garsinan, citing the
                    Ritva):</font></b> Rashi explains that the people bought
                    were Nochrim. This is difficult, for if so one
                    may work them excessively! Also, in Bava Metzia
                    this is brought regarding Ribis! Rather, they
                    were Yisre'elim. We asked whether the king can
                    sell a Yisrael to be an Eved Ivri, who is
                    bodily acquired and needs a Get to go free. Or,
                    perhaps it is like a mere debt, and the buyer
                    cannot work with him even like an Eved Ivri
                    more than the debt, lest he transgress
                    subjugating a Yisrael and Ribis. We answered
                    that the king conquered them in war, and left
                    them in his land on condition that one who does
                    not pay the tax can be sold to be a slave. Eved
                    Ivri applies only when Yovel applies, i.e. to
                    leave after six years or through Simanim, and
                    to permit marrying a Shifchah. Even when there
                    is no Yovel, he is a slave and is freed only
                    through a Get or money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Rosh brings Rava's defense of his brother's
               practice.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Hagahos Ashri brings Rava's justification for
                    paying the head-tax of people and making them
                    work for him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 5:16):</font></b> If a king decreed
               that whoever pays the fixed tax for Ploni, who did
               not pay it, may make Ploni work for him, and a
               Yisrael paid the tax for a poor Yisrael, he may make
               him work exceedingly, for the king's law is law.
               However, he may not work with him like a slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 5:17):</font></b> If a king decreed that
               whoever pays the fixed tax for Ploni, who did not
               pay it, may make Ploni work for him, and one paid a
               Dinar for Ploni's tax, he may make him work for more
               than a Dinar. The same applies to all similar cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Avadim 1:7):</font></b> One may not make an
               Eved Ivri do tasks special for slaves, e.g. carrying
               one's clothes after him to the bathhouse or removing
               his shoes. The Isur applies only to an Eved Ivri,
               who is dispirited by the sale. If a Yisrael was
               never sold one may use him like a slave, for he
               works willingly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8):</font></b> If one does not act properly, one may
               force him to work for him. If a king decreed that if
               Ploni does not pay his fixed tax, Ploni must work
               for one (Levi) who pays it, Levi may make him work
               exceedingly, but not like a slave. If Ploni does not
               act properly, one may make him work like a slave.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</font></b> The Gemara did not say so
                    in this case! Rather, people paid a tax of 10
                    Dinarim for a Yisrael, and made him do 15
                    Dinarim of work. The Gemara asked whether this
                    is like a loan, and forbidden due to Ribis. It
                    answered that it is not a loan, rather, a sale.
                    The king is authorized to sell his subjects
                    like slaves until they pay the tax.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> The Ra'avad explains that we
                    asked whether the buyer may receive more work
                    than what he paid. The Rambam explains that the
                    buyer worked the people too harshly. The Gemara
                    supports him, for it brings after this the
                    Heter to work harshly with people who act
                    improperly.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Beis Yosef (CM 369 DH u'Mah she'Omar v'Chen):
                    Some texts of the Gemara do not say that the
                    buyer worked with them 'Tfei' (more), for
                    payment of the tax was like a loan. The Shevuos
                    returned the money through their work. The
                    Tur's text did not say 'Tfei'; the Rambam's
                    text did.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos ha'Gra (73b):</font></b> The primary explanation
                    is like the Ra'avad (the question was about
                    Ribis). His text said 'Tfei'.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Lechem Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam explains that we
                    asked whether making the Yisrael do work worth
                    more than he paid is theft. He learns from
                    'Tfei'.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 369:11):</font></b> If a king decreed that
               whoever pays the fixed tax for Ploni, who did not
               pay it, may make Ploni work for him, and a Yisrael
               paid the tax for a poor Yisrael, he may make him
               work exceedingly, for the king's law is law.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (19):</font></b> This is only if it is accepted and
                    acknowledged in those lands that he is the
                    king. If not, he is like a mere thief.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> He may not work with him like
               a slave.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Omar u'Bilvad):</font></b> The
                    Rambam holds that this Isur applies only to an
                    Eved Ivri. The Rambam teaches that since the
                    king's law allows using him since he paid the
                    tax, it is as if he was sold. His law is like
                    an Eved Ivri, so one may not make him work like
                    a slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (YD 267:14):</font></b> Eved Ivri applies only
               whe Yovel applies. This refers to acquiring him
               bodily for other laws of Eved Ivri. If captors
               acquired a Yisrael for his work, through the king's
               law, e.g. he was captured in war or sold by tax
               collectors, he can sell him to a Yisrael for his
               work.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Ramah):</font></b> The Ramah
                    (brought in the Tur) explains that the king
                    acquires a Yisrael like a mere worker, not like 
                    a slave who is bodily acquired. He explains the
                    Gemara in Yevamos like Rashi, that the king
                    sold Nochrim, unlike the Ritva (above, in
                    Nimukei Yosef).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramah (brought in Tur and Shach 25):</font></b> If he was
                    captured at a time of peace, and not through
                    the king's law, one who buys him does not
                    acquire him at all. He simply goes free.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ben Lev (3:11, cited by R. Akiva Eiger):</font></b> This
                    is like Rashi, who says that Gitin 38a teaches
                    that a Nochri can acquire an Eved Kena'ani. The
                    Rashba explains that it teaches that he can
                    acquire a Yisrael. In any case, the slave
                    should need to pay back the one who redeemed
                    him! Sometimes Levi need not pay one who paid
                    Levi's debt, but when Levi was sure to lose, he
                    must pay! Even if this is an enactment, it
                    applies here.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> The slave can pay his Yisrael
               master what he paid for him or his worth, and he
               goes free. The master has the lower hand, and
               receives the lesser amount.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (26,27):</font></b> The slave can pay right after he
                    was sold, or afterwards. If he does not pay, he
                    serves the buyer, even if this is worth more
                    than what the buyer paid. The redemption does
                    not decrease according to how long the slave
                    already served, for Eved Ivri does not apply
                    nowadays.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (15):</font></b> If people do not act properly,
               one may use force to make them to work for him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (16):</font></b> If a king decreed that whoever
               pays the fixed tax for Ploni, who did not pay it,
               may make Ploni work for him, one who does so may
               make him work exceedingly, but not like a slave. If
               Ploni does not act properly, one may make him work
               like a slave.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (29):</font></b> A Yisrael bought from the king does
                    not need a Get to go free, for the king did not
                    own him bodily. A Nochri sold by the king is an
                    Eved Kena'ani (Sa'if 18).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (29):</font></b> According to the Rambam, I do not
                    understand what the question was. The Rambam
                    (Hilchos Gezeilah 5:16) and Shulchan Aruch (CM
                    369:11) explain this law regarding the validity
                    of the king's laws.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	Rav Mari bar Rachel took a house for a Mashkanta from a
          Nochri, who then sold it to Rava. A year later, Rav Mari
          gave a year's rent to Rava (for the coming year).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Mari:</font></b> Within one year, the Nochri could not have
               removed me from the house even if he paid the loan.
               From now onwards, I must pay rent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Had I known that it was your Mashkanta, I
               would not have bought it. Now that I know, I take
               the law of the Nochri (for I am in place of  him.
               Had he not sold to me,) until he paid you, he would
               not receive rent. I also will not take rent until I
               force him to pay you. (It is not Ribis for Rav Mari
               to live there for free, for Rava does not owe
               anything to him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava of Barnayish):</font></b> Rabanan take Ribis! They
          pay for wine in Tishrei and take it in Teves, and the
          seller bears the loss if it sours in between!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If it soured in between, that shows
          that it was not proper wine from the beginning. They paid
          for wine, not for vinegar!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LAW OF THE LAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> Before the harvest, I give money for
          wine. I receive an extra measure. Is this permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Yes. Since there was no Tanai, this is
          just a gift.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> The sellers do not own the land. They pay
               the tax for abandoned land and work it. Is the wine
               forbidden because the land was stolen?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> No. The king has rights over the land. He
               says that whoever pays the land tax, he gets the
               Peros.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> There are Rabanan who pay the head-
          tax of people, and make them work for them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> The king is master over all his subjects.
          He says that whoever pays another's head-tax may make the
          person work for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rav Se'oram (Rava's brother) used to grab indecent people
          and make them pull Rava's rickshaw.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If one does not act
               properly, you may force him to work for you -
               'l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu uv'Acheichem' (forever you 
               will work with Kena'ani slaves and with your
               brothers)';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this applies even to
                    someone acting properly!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Uv'Acheichem Bnei Yisrael (you may
                    not work harshly).'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ASMACHTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Chama):</font></b> If Reuven gave Shimon money to buy wine, and
          he was negligent and did not, he must give him wine like
          it sells at the major market (cheaply).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Zvid of Neharde'a):</font></b> That is only if he asked for
          (unspecified) wine. If he asked for a specific wine, he
          just gets back his money. We do not know if they would
          have agreed to sell it to him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if he asked for (unspecified) wine, he
          just gets back his money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Even if he promised to give his wine if he will
          not buy, this is only Asmachta. There was no acquisition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the difference between this and the
          following?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one rented a field on condition to
               give a certain amount of (its) Peros, and accepted
               to pay if he will not work the field, this is
               binding.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> There, he can surely work the field. Here, there
          is no guarantee that they would sell to him.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SITUMTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If three people gave money to Reuven, and each
          asked him to buy the same thing, and he bought it, they
          are partners in it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if they gave him loose money. If the 
               money was bound, he bought for the one whose money
               he used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Papa):</font></b> Situmta (marking barrels that one wants to
          buy) is an acquisition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Chaviva):</font></b> It is a full acquisition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rabanan):</font></b> If either side retracts, he must
          receive the curse (He who punished...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	The Halachah follows Rabanan;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In a place where this is used to acquire, it
               acquires.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONTRACTING FOR UNFINISHED GOODS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven harvested...(before there was a
          fixed price).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav):</font></b> If two labors still must be done to the Peros, he
          may contract, but not if three remain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Shmuel):</font></b> If one can do the remaining labors himself,
          even if 100 remain, he may contract. If something remains
          to be done at the hands of Heaven, he may not contract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract if he has a stack
          of grain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He must put it in the sun, thresh and winnow!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (for Rav):</font></b> The case is, it is already in the
          sun.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is still difficult for Shmuel. Winnowing
               requires wind!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (for Shmuel):</font></b> He can use a sifter in place of
          winnowing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract if he has a
          container of grapes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They must be warmed (through the sun, or from the
               ground), brought to the winery, stomped, and the
               wine must be drawn into the pit!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (for Shmuel):</font></b> R. Chiya taught (below) that the
          olives were already warm. Similarly, we can say that the
          grapes are already warm.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is still difficult for Rav, for three labors
               remain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (for Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where
          the buyer draws the wine into the pit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract if he has a
          container of olives.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They must be warmed, brought to the olive-press,
               pressed, and the oil must be drawn into the pit!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (for Shmuel - R. Chiya):</font></b> The case is, the
          olives were already warm.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is still difficult for Rav, for three labors
               remain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (for Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where
          the buyer draws the oil into the pit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract if he has clay
          formed to make pots.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It must be wrapped, dried, brought to the furnace,
               baked and taken out!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (for Shmuel):</font></b> The case is, it is already
          wrapped and dried.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is still difficult for Rav, for three labors
               remain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (for Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where
          the buyer takes the pots out.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #4 (Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract if he has wood and
          stones that were put in the furnace to make plaster.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They must be burned and taken out, water must be
               added and it must be mixed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (for Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where
          the buyer mixes it with water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to Shmuel, why does the Mishnah say
          that they were already put in the furnace? Even if they
          were not, he may contract, since this is not b'Yedei
          Shamayim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means 'once they are ready to put in
          the furnace.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONTRACTING FOR THE FUTURE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Clay formed to make pots.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> One may not contract until the clay
          is formed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Yosi says, that is only for white clay. One may
          contract for pots of black clay, for others have them
          already formed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	Ameimar would give money once the potter brought (black)
          clay into his house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to whom is this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Meir, the clay must be formed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yosi, even if the potter has no
               clay, he may contract, since others have!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Yosi. In Ameimar's area, clay was
          expensive. The buyer and seller decide absolutely on the
          deal only if the potter has the clay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may contract for manure all year round.
          (R. Yosi permits only if he has a pile; Chachamim permit
          it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do the first Tana and Chachamim argue
          about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> The first Tana permits even in winter.
          Chachamim permit only in summer.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'SITUMTA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Papi says that 'Situmta' is a valid form of acquisition. Rav Chaviva says that this means that 'Situmta' achieves a binding Kinyan, and the Rabanan say that although it does not achieve a binding Kinyan, one who performs a Kinyan of 'Situmta' and violates the agreement is subject to the curse of 'Mi she'Para.' The Gemara concludes that the Halachah follows the view of the Rabanan, but in a place where the custom is that this is a valid Kinyan, it indeed functions as a valid Kinyan.
</p><p>
What is 'Situmta'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Situmta) explains that a 'Situmta' is a seal affixed to a container of wine as a sign that it was sold (i.e. reserved for the buyer even though it is still in the seller's warehouse). Although the placing of the seal on the barrel is not a normal Kinyan, in a place where the custom is to finalize the transaction with such an act, it is considered a Kinyan.
</p><p>
The <b>RE'AH</b> and <b>RITVA</b> question Rashi's explanation. How could Rav Chaviva say that this is considered a Kinyan even in a place where there is no custom to acquire in this manner?
</p><p>
<b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in He'oros b'Maseches Bava Metzia) suggests that Rashi understands that the actual act of inscribing the barrel is not what effects the Kinyan, according to Rav Chaviva. Rather, the inscribing causes the seller to designate these barrels to the buyer, and thus he is unable to sell them to anyone else. The fact that he is unable to sell them to anyone causes all others to forgo their hopes of buying them ('Mesi'ach Da'as'), and thus the Kinyan takes effect.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> quotes a different understanding of the Gemara in the name of <b>RABEINU PINCHAS</b>, the brother of the Re'ah. He understands that 'Situmta' is the name of an unstamped coin which the seller gives the buyer when they agree to make the transaction. The two opinions in the Gemara argue about the nature of this transaction. Rav Chaviva understands that the picking up of the coin is like an act of Kinyan Chalipin, wherein one of the parties picks up an item to effect the transaction, and thus he maintains that it is a valid Kinyan. The Rabanan understand that it serves merely as a symbolic monetary payment which indicates that the parties have agreed to enter a transaction. Accordingly, one who retracts is subject only to 'Mi she'Para.'
</p><p>
The root of the dispute seems to be whether or not an act of finalizing a deal can have the status of a Kinyan. The Re'ah and Ritva maintain that only Kinyanim authorized by the are valid. Rashi maintains that any accepted manner in which merchants finalize their transactions is considered a valid Kinyan. The <b>RASHBA</b>, and most other Rishonim, seem to side with Rashi and rule that a custom can establish a Kinyan.
</p><p>
A major issue among the Poskim is whether such a Kinyan has the status of a Kinyan d'Oraisa or Kinyan d'Rabanan. The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (cited by the <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> CM 201:1) maintains that the Kinyan is mid'Rabanan. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (cited by the Pischei Teshuvah) says that the Kinyan is mid'Oraisa, based on the Torah's rule that any monetary condition between two people is binding (as long as it does not contradict Halachah). When merchants have such a custom, it is considered as though they make a condition with each other that when an act of 'Situmta' is done, the ownership of the object is transferred. The Chasam Sofer proves this from the words of the <b>RAMBAN</b> who explicitly says that the Kinyan is mid'Oraisa. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RETRACTING FROM ONE'S WORD</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 48a (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Chachamim said that a
               Dinar does not acquire a garment, and we do not
               force the seller to give it, but 'He who punished...
               He will punish one who does not honor his word. If
               one verbally agreed to buy or sell, this is not a
               Kinyan. Chachamim are displeased with one who
               retracts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> There is no curse for this, just Chachamim
               are displeased.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If one verbally agreed to buy or sell, and money was
               given, and he retracts, he is cursed. If one
               verbally agreed to buy or sell, but money was not
               given, and he retracts, he is not cursed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A case occurred in which people paid R. Chiya bar
               Yosef money to buy salt. Salt rose in price. R.
               Yochanan told him 'honor the sale. If not, you will
               accept on yourself 'He who punished...''
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> They had given partial payment. R. Chiya thought
               that he must sell only as much as was paid. R.
               Yochanan told him that he must honor the entire
               sale.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 49a:</font></b> Rav Kahana received partial payment for flax;
               the price went up.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> You must give flax for the money you received.
               The agreement to sell the rest is mere words. One
               who retracts from an oral agreement is not mi'Katnei
               Emunah (of small faith);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He is considered mi'Katnei Emunah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> It
               says 'Hin Tzedek' to teach that 'Hen' and 'Lav'
               (when you say yes or no) must be just.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yosi forbids saying something
               that he does not intend to fulfill. (However, one
               who intended to fulfill his word need not do so if
               circumstances (e.g. prices) change.)
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R.
               Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven promised to give a gift to
               Levi, he is fully permitted to retract.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> This refers to a large gift (Levi
               is not confident of receiving it. He) forbids
               retracting from a promise for a small gift.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 74b:</font></b> (Rav Papa): R. Shimon said only that the buyer
               cannot retract if the price is the same. If it
               changed, also he may retract.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support:</font></b> If we would not say so, we do not find that
               a buyer ever bears the curse 'He who punished...'
               according to R. Shimonl
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> In any case, that is the
                    law. However, Chachamim said, 'He who
                    punished...'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> 'In any case' teaches that R. Shimon said that
                    the buyer cannot retract only if the price is
                    the same.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kidushin 8b:</font></b> Rav Huna's children agreed to buy a
               slave for Perutos (small coins). They had no Perutos
               with them. They left a piece of precious metal for a
               security. The value of the slave increased.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ami:</font></b> The coins were never given, so the security
               has no effect.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (4:10,14):</font></b> If one verbally agreed to
               buy or sell, this is not a Kinyan. Chachamim are
               displeased with one who retracts. The curse is only
               if they agreed and money was given. The case of Rav
               Huna's sons proves that there is no curse even if a
               security was given.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ba'al ha'Ma'or:</font></b> If the price changed, one who
                    retracts is not mi'Katnei Emunah. We find that
                    R. Shimon says that money acquires for a buyer,
                    but if the price changed, he can retract, but
                    he is cursed (74b). The case of Rav Huna bar
                    Avin's sons proves that if the price changed,
                    one who retracts is not mi'Katnei Emunah. The
                    Gemara brings Rav Kahana's sale of flax, and
                    then the argument of Rav and R. Yochanan. In
                    the case of the flax even R. Yochanan would
                    have permitted him, for the price rose. It put
                    these matters together because they are
                    similar. The Rif rules like R. Yochanan. We
                    challenge Rav from the Beraisa of 'Hin Tzedek'
                    Why did he bring Abaye's answer, which is
                    unlike R. Yochanan? Perhaps it is to teach
                    about a large gift; R. Yochanan.admits that one
                    may retract from it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ra'avad (Kasuv Sham):</font></b> R. Yosi learns from 'Hin
                    Tzedek' that one who promises falsely
                    transgresses an Aseh. He is called a Rasha.
                    This is worse than mi'Katnei Emunah! There was
                    no question against R. Yochanan. He could hold
                    like R. Yosi; he discussed mi'Katnei Emunah,
                    for he came to argue with Rav. One who intended
                    when he promised is not a Rasha. If he promised
                    a small gift and does not give it, R. Yochanan
                    holds that he is mi'Katnei Emunah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Milchamos Hash-m:</font></b> The Ba'al ha'Ma'or
                    understands that 'two Tar'ei' mentioned in the
                    Gemara means that the price went up or down.
                    This is a total mistaken. R. Shimon holds that
                    mid'Oraisa, money acquires. Chachamim did not
                    enact that a buyer can retract. What difference
                    does it make if the price changed? The Gemara
                    said that one who contracts intends for the
                    lower price. If so, according to Chachamim
                    there is no Mi she'Pora (for one who
                    contracts)! Rather, 'two Tar'ei' is when he
                    gives money now on condition that not to
                    receive Peros until later. The price is prone
                    to change, and he gives money now with intent
                    for the lower price later, so it is forbidden.
                    Rav Huna's sons wanted to buy the slave. The
                    seller wanted to retract because the price
                    rose. R. Yochanan told them that the seller can
                    retract; indeed, one who does is is mi'Katnei
                    Emunah. The question from the Beraisa of 'Hin
                    Tzedek' was difficult also for R. Yochanan, who
                    permits retracting from a large gift, because
                    the verse does not distinguish large from small
                    gifts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (14):</font></b> The general rule is, the curse is only if
               they agreed and money was given and he retracts
               because the market price changed. If they agreed
               without money, one who retracts is mi'Katnei Emunah,
               like R. Yochanan says.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (CM 204 DH v'Chosav Ba'al):</font></b> R. Ami
                    would not have permitted Rav Huna's sons to
                    retract if this is mi'Katnei Emunah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (ibid.):</font></b> Talmidei ha'Rashba bring a
                    proof from R. Chiya bar Yosef, who thought that
                    he need not sell more than what he was paid
                    for. He was not concerned for being mi'Katnei
                    Emunah. However, perhaps he held that since
                    partial payment does not acquire the full
                    amount (for Mi she'Pora), there is no
                    obligation to honor his word about the rest,
                    either. It seems that Rashi holds that Rav and
                    R. Yochanan argue even in a case when the price
                    changed. He explains that Abaye answered for
                    Rav that the Beraisa of 'Hin Tzedek' forbids
                    only saying something without intent to fulfill
                    it, but if prices change, he may retract. This
                    implies that R. Yochanan forbids even if prices
                    changed! The simple Perush is that as long as
                    he intended to fulfill it when he said it, he
                    may change his mind later even if prices did
                    not change. The Rashba holds that 'mi'Katnei
                    Emunah' applies even if the price changed; the
                    Ra'avad, Magid Mishneh, Ran and Tosfos agree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> The Halachah follows Rava, that Beis Din gives
               the curse. We learn that one who retracts is not
               considered one who acts like your nation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Mechirah (7:2):</font></b> Beis Din curses him
               and says 'He who punished... He will punish one who
               does not fulfill his word.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8):</font></b> If one agreed to buy or sell through
               mere words, it is proper to fulfill his word even if
               he did not receive any money, mark (a barrel) or
               take a security. If the buyer or seller retracts,
               even though he need not accept Mi she'Pora, he is
               mi'Katnei Emunah, and Chachamim are displeased with
               him.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 204:1):</font></b> If one gave the money but
               did not do Meshichah, even though he did not acquire
               the Metaltelim, if the buyer or seller retracts, he
               acted unlike a Yisrael, and he must accept Mi
               she'Pora.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (7):</font></b> If one agreed to buy or sell
               through mere words, it is proper that he fulfill his
               word even though he did not receive any money, mark
               (a barrel) or take a security. If the buyer or
               seller retracts, even though he need not accept Mi
               she'Pora, he is mi'Katnei Emunah, and Chachamim are
               displeased with him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (12):</font></b> The Rambam holds that this is even if
                    the price changed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> He infers this, for the Rambam did not
                    specify.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (11):</font></b> If the price changed, 'mi'Katnei Emunah'
               does not apply. Some forbid retracting even if the
               price changed. This is primary
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Bach (Sof ha'Siman):</font></b> The YerushalmI say that
                    there is no problem of mi'Katnei Emunah when
                    the price changed. It is best to say that the
                    Bavli does not argue.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>IS ONE CURSED FOR RETRACTING AFTER ONES OCCURRED? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CHANGE IN PRICE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He may contract at the cheap price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Reuven gave money (for ornaments) to a maker of girls'
          ornaments, on behalf of his father-in-law. Ornaments
          became cheaper.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Papa:</font></b> If you stipulated to receive the cheap price,
          you get at today's price. If not, you get at the price
          when the money was given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rabanan):</font></b> If he did not stipulate, why does he
          get the old price? He only gave money. That is not an
          acquisition (he can retract and buy now)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> I ruled about who must receive the
          curse 'He who punished...':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven stipulated and the seller wants to
               retract, the seller bears the curse. If he did not
               stipulate and the buyer wants to retract, he bears
               the curse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina):</font></b> What is the source that our Mishnah is
          Chachamim who argue about R. Shimon, and say that money
          does not acquire, and even so, if he stipulated, he gets
          at today's price?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps our Mishnah is R. Shimon, who says that
               money acquires. If he stipulated, he gets at today's
               price. If not, he gets at the original price!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim would say that either way he gets today's
               price, for a buyer always intends for the cheaper
               price!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> R. Shimon said only that the buyer
          cannot retract if the price is the same. If it changed,
          also he may retract.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support:</font></b> We must say this. If not, we do not find
               that a buyer ever bears the curse 'He who
               punished...' according to R. Shimon!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps he holds that a buyer never bears
               the curse!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> In any case, that
               is the law. However, Chachamim said, 'He who
               punished...'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does 'in any case' teach?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is whether the buyer or seller
                    retracts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> We conclude that R. Shimon said that the buyer
               cannot retract only if the price is the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Here, the curse does not
          apply to the buyer, for Reuven was only a Shali'ach! (He
          does not retract. His father-in-law cannot be cursed, for
          he did not appoint a Shali'ach to make a bad deal, i.e.
          without stipulating!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He was not a Shali'ach. He received
          money from his father to buy clothing. (Alternatively, he
          was buying in order to sell to his father-in-law.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>LENDING GRAIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may lend to his sharecropper a Se'ah of
          wheat (on condition to return a Se'ah) for planting, but
          not to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Gamliel used to lend this way (for planting); whether
          the price went up or down, he would take back wheat
          according to the higher price - this was not the law, he
          was stringent on himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> A man may lend his sharecropper wheat
          for (an equal measure of) wheat for planting;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if the sharecropper did not yet start
               working. If he started, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why does the Tana of the Beraisa distinguish
          between whether he started working or not, but our Tana
          (of the Mishnah) does not distinguish?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> In the area of our Tana, the sharecropper
          provides the seed. Since he has no seed, even if he
          started working, the owner can fire him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, when the owner lends him to seed, it is
               like hiring him now. He is hired for a smaller wage
               (i.e. the owner will deduct the amount he gave him
               from the sharecropper's share of the harvest).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	In the area of the Tana of the Beraisa, the owner
          provides the seed. Since it was a good field, the
          sharecropper agreed to provide the seed himself. Before
          he started working, the owner can fire him. Therefore,
          when the owner lends him seed, it is like hiring him now,
          for a smaller wage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana forbids this if he started working and then
               accepted to provide the seed himself;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since the owner cannot fire him, he lends to him on
               condition to get back the same amount. This is
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven may ask Shimon to lend to him a Kor of
          wheat if he fixes a price. If the price declines, he pays
          wheat. If it goes up, he pays their initial value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> They fixed a price. He should pay what they
          fixed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Seifa gives the law (he pays
          wheat or the initial value) if they did not fix a price.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) LENDING SEEDS TO THE SHARECROPPER</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that a person may lend to his sharecropper measures of wheat, to be repaid in kind (Se'ah b'Se'ah), in order that he plant the field. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that this is allowed only when the sharecropper has not begun to work on the field.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the Mishnah and Beraisa are not in disagreement. The Mishnah refers to a case in which the local custom is that the sharecropper is responsible for supplying the seeds. Even if the sharecropper starts plowing the field, the landowner can fire him if he fails to supply the seeds. When the sharecropper lets the landowner supply the seeds, the sharecropper essentially is telling the landowner that he (the sharecropper) will take less wheat from the harvest. This is not a loan but rather an arrangement that the sharecropper will take a smaller salary. The Beraisa, on the other hand, refers to a place where the custom is that the landowner supplies the seeds. Therefore, once the sharecropper starts to work on the field, his job has started and nothing else is expected of him (other than work). Therefore, the seeds he receives are considered a loan.
</p><p>
How exactly does the Gemara understand the Beraisa?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mari Ar'a) explains that in a place where the custom is that the landowner supplies the seeds and the sharecropper works the field, the deal between the landowner and sharecropper is considered established. If the landowner decides that the sharecropper should be responsible for supplying the seeds but the landowner will lend them to him, this is not an inherent part of the deal and therefore is considered an external loan. Since a loan of Se'ah b'Se'ah generally is forbidden, it is forbidden in this case as well. However, if the sharecropper did not yet start to work the field, the Beraisa would agree that such a loan is permitted, since the sharecropper and landowner may stipulate how much produce the sharecropper will receive for his work before the work has begun.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TALMIDEI HA'RASHBA</b> (quoted by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b>, YD 162) explain that even if the landowner told the sharecropper to supply the seeds, in a place where the custom is that the landowner supplies the seeds the sharecropper cannot be fired once he starts working the land, even if he fails to supply the seeds. Accordingly, the <i>actual loan</i> of seeds must be done before the sharecropper starts to work, and it cannot be merely an agreement that the sharecropper will borrow seeds from the landowner. This limitation applies even when there is a previous agreement that the sharecropper will supply the seeds. The Beis Yosef explains that in any place where the custom is that a person is considered to have started a job by doing a certain action, that action makes all of the details of the general custom take effect despite the specific conditions made by the parties in this particular deal. Rashi disagrees and maintains that in monetary matters, one may stipulate any he wants; once the landowner has made a condition that the sharecropper must supply the seeds, this makes the deal similar to a deal which is done in a place where the custom is that the sharecropper supplies the seeds. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>BORROWING WHAT ONE HAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may not say 'lend to me a Kor of wheat on
          condition that I will return a Kor after the harvest';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	He may ask for a loan until his son comes or he finds the
          key (to get to wheat he has now); (c)	Hillel forbids
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Similarly, Hillel forbids a woman to lend a loaf to her
          neighbor until she sets a price for it, lest wheat rise
          in price and she will give (back a loaf worth more, which
          is) Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> When the borrower has wheat, he may
          borrow the quantity he has.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yitzchak):</font></b> If one has a Se'ah, he may borrow many
          Korim (a Kor is 30 Sa'im.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for R. Yitzchak - R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> (One may
          not lend wine (or oil)) when he does not have even a drop
          of wine (or oil);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If he has, he may borrow many drops.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Hillel forbids this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows Hillel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	The Halachah does not follow Hillel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, Hillel forbids a woman to lend...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Chachamim argue. They permit lending
          without fixing a price.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a group of people lend to each other
          and are insistent to get back no less than they gave,
          they transgress (on Shabbos and Yom Tov) measuring,
          weighing and counting, lending and repaying on Yom Tov,
          and according to Hillel, also Ribis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>PERMISSION FOR RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When Chachamim lend to each other, the
          borrower may return a little more than he borrowed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They know that Ribis is forbidden. The excess is
          a gift (that he would have given even without the loan.
          Ramban - this applies to needs of a meal. Chachamim are
          not insistent to get back what they gave.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi) Shmuel (to Avuha bar Ihi):</font></b> Lend to me
          100 peppers. I will return an extra 20. This is
          permitted, for it is only a gift.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Ramban) Shmuel (to Avuha bar Ihi):</font></b> Lend to me
          100 peppers. I will not be careful to return only 100, I
          may add an extra 20. This is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	Version #3 (Gra YD 160:39) Shmuel (to Avuha bar Ihi):
          Lend to me 100 peppers. Even if I will return an extra
          20, this is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may lend to people of his household on
          Ribis, to teach them how severe its consequences are.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> This is forbidden, lest they come to desire to
          receive Ribis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER KINDS OF RIBIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven may say to Shimon 'weed or dig with me
          today, and I will do so with you tomorrow';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	He may not say 'weed with me today, and I will dig with
          you (Rashi - at a later date)' or vice-versa.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TALMIDEI CHACHAMIM MAY LEND WITH RIBIS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that Talmidei Chachamim are permitted to lend to and borrow from each other with Ribis. The Gemara explains that since Talmidei Chachamim know the laws of Ribis, when a Talmid Chacham pays back more money than he borrowed from his colleague, he is actually giving a gift and not Ribis. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Matanah) qualifies this allowance by saying that even Talmidei Chachamim may give each other only small gifts, amounts that they know in their hearts that they would give to each other anyway.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites support for this Halachah from an incident in which Shmuel asked Avuha bar Ihi to lend him 100 peppers and he would pay him back 120.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah? Are Talmidei Chachamim indeed permitted to lend money to each other with Ribis?
</p><p>
(a) Many Rishonim rule that Talmidei Chachamim indeed may lend money to each other with Ribis (<b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b>, <b>TUR</b> YD 160, and others), and even stipulate such terms when the loan is given. They agree, however, with Tosfos that the Ribis may be only a small amount. This is also the ruling of the <b>REMA</b> (YD 160:17). The Rema adds, however, in the name of the <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> that Talmidei Chachamim should not do this often, lest others (who are not Talmidei Chachamim) learn from them and borrow with Ribis.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 4:9) writes that when the Gemara says that Talmidei Chachamim may lend to each other with Ribis, it means only that they may <i>pay back</i> Ribis, but they may not stipulate at the outset that the loan will be repaid with Ribis. This seems to be the way the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 160:17) rules.
</p><p>
How does the Rambam understand the incident of Shmuel which clearly implies that Talmidei Chachamim may even arrange to borrow with Ribis? The answer is that the Rambam understands the word 'v'Arich' differently from Rashi. When the Gemara relates that Shmuel arranged that he would pay back more than he borrowed, the Gemara concludes with the word 'v'Arich.' Rashi (DH v'Arich) explains that this word means, 'And it is fine'; such a loan is permitted and there is nothing wrong with it. The <b>TAZ</b> (YD 160:12) explains that the Rambam understands that the word 'v'Arich' is part of Shmuel's statement. Shmuel said that he would pay back 120 peppers 'if it is good'; Shmuel did not actually commit to pay back 120 peppers, but rather he said that he <i>might</i> pay them if he so chooses. Accordingly, the Rambam understands that the Gemara does not say that Talmidei Chachamim are permitted to commit to a Ribis transaction. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RIBIS BEFORE OR AFTER THE LOAN</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 64b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven lent money to Levi, he may
               not dwell in Levi's yard for free, or rent from Levi
               for less than the norm, for this is Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> Even though one
               who lives in Ploni's yard without Ploni's knowledge
               need not pay him, if he lent to Ploni money, he must
               pay him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we forbid only
               when the yard is normally rented out and Levi
               normally rents a place to stay. Rav Yosef forbids
               even a yard not normally rented out, even if Levi
               does not normally rent a place.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> If Reuven lives
               in Ploni's yard without his knowledge, he need not
               pay him, but if Ploni told him 'lend to me money and
               live in my yard', Reuven must pay him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Version #1 forbids living for free even if Ploni did
               not suggest the deal, and all the more so, if Ploni
               suggested it! Version #2 forbids living for free
               only if Ploni suggested the deal. If Ploni never
               suggested it, Reuven did not lend in order to live
               in his yard, so it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 73b - Question (Ravina):</font></b> Before the harvest, I give
               money for wine. I receive an extra measure. Is this
               permitted?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Yes. Since there was no Tanai,
               this is just a gift.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 75b (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> If Reuven wanted to
               borrow from Shimon, he may not give to him a gift
               'in order that you will lend to me.' This is Ribis
               Mukdemes (pre-loan Ribis). If he borrowed and
               returned the money, he may not give to him a gift
               'due to your money that was idle with me.' This is
               Ribis Me'ucheres (post-loan Ribis).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, there is Ribis of words. The
               borrower may not inform the lender of Ploni's
               coming.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> If Reuven owes Shimon, and he
               normally did not greet him first with Shalom, he may
               not do so. 'Neshech Kol Davar' forbids even words.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif brings the Mishnah and Beraisa (75b).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 5:11):</font></b> One may not give Ribis
               before or after. If one wanted to borrow from Ploni,
               he may not send a gift to him in order that he will
               lend to him. This is Ribis Mukdemes. If he borrowed
               from him and returned the money, he may not give to
               him a gift due to his money that was idle with him.'
               This is Ribis Me'ucheres. If he transgressed and did
               so, it is Avak Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Lechem Mishneh (1):</font></b> The Rambam connotes that
                    even Stam (without specifying), it is
                    forbidden. Above (4:9) he permits Chachamim to
                    return extra to each other. This implies that
                    others are forbidden. However, the Mishnah
                    connotes that it is forbidden only if he
                    specified. Below (8:9), the Rambam permits
                    returning extra! The Magid Mishneh says that
                    the Rambam forbids when he specifies, and even
                    Stam if it is at the time he pays. The Rambam
                    in Perek 8 connotes that he gives at the time
                    of payment; the Magid Mishneh addresses this.
                    The Tur holds that the Rambam forbids even
                    after payment, and here he forbids even Stam,
                    i.e. but he intends due to the loan. In Perek 8
                    he permits taking extra, since the giver did
                    not need to do so. We forbid only if it is
                    clearly due to the loan. We permit Chachamim
                    even if they promised from the start to return
                    extra. Other people are forbidden. The Rambam
                    in Perek 4 does not say that that they
                    specified, but the Tur did not want to explain
                    like the Magid Mishnah due to the difficulty in
                    Perek 8.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8:9):</font></b> If one bought wheat, and when he came
               to collect it the seller gave to him extra, it is
               permitted, fcor he did so willingly without a Tanai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (5:67):</font></b> Rav Ashi told Ravina that the sellers
               gave a low price to him. Rashi explains that since
               he did not stipulate with them, and they did so on
               their own volition, and did not mention that it was
               due to his money that was idle with them, it is a
               mere gift. I am hesitant to permit this. The wording
               of the Mishnah connotes that Ribis Me'ucheres is
               forbidden only when he says 'due to your money that
               was idle with me', i.e. when he sent the gift after
               the loan was returned. If he gives extra at the time
               of payment, it looks like Ribis even Stam!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> Why is this different than a
                    lender who lived in the borrower's Chatzer?
                    There, he must pay rental! It seems that there,
                    when he lives there he still owes the money.
                    Here, the gift is after the loan was paid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Ashri (79):</font></b> Ribis Mukdemes is when he
                    does not specify that it is for the sake of
                    Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Hagahos Ashri (ibid.):</font></b> Ribis Devarim is
                    forbidden if he normally did not give Shalom to
                    him first, and now (after he lent to him) he
                    does. Even though the lender benefits and the
                    borrower does not lose, it is forbidden. If he
                    used to do so (before the loan), it is
                    permitted even if the lender benefits and the
                    borrower loses.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 160:6):</font></b> One may not give Ribis
               before or after. If one wanted to borrow from Ploni,
               and sent a gift to him (Rema - and specified that it
               is in order that he will lend to him, or it is a
               large gift, which is as if he specified) in order
               that he will lend to him, this is Ribis Mukdemes.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH uvi'Semag):</font></b> Perhaps if he used
                    to give big gifts, it is permitted even now,
                    for it does not look like Ribis. Or, perhaps it
                    is forbidden because it becomes known. The Tur
                    forbids using his slave or living in his
                    Chatzer, even if he used to do so, for this
                    reason.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH b'Perek):</font></b> Tosfos (Gitin 20b DH
                    v'Kosev) says that a certain man used to lend
                    to everyone, and they would give or sell fields
                    to him. This is a big gift! It seems that Ribis
                    Mukdemes or Ribis Me'ucheres is only when it is
                    close to the loan; but long before or after,
                    Stam it is permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (3):</font></b> The Isur is on the borrower, for he
                    knows why he gives. The Rambam forbids Stam
                    when he intends in order that he will lend to
                    him; the Shulchan Aruch permits. When we do not
                    know his intent, Stam we assume that he does
                    not intend for Isur. The Tur explains that the
                    Rambam permits giving extra in a sale.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (10):</font></b> Stam, a small gift is permitted.
                    The Drishah says in the name of Maharshal that
                    whenever it is known that he intends for the
                    loan, it is forbidden. Perhaps all Poskim agree
                    to this.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva Eiger (DH v'Hayah):</font></b> If he stipulated
                    'this is a gift on condition that you lend to
                    me. If not, you must return it', this is
                    pardonging a loan on condition that he will
                    lend to him, which is Ribis Ketzuzah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (YD 160 DH v'Yesh):</font></b> Hagahos Ashri
                    connotes that if he specifies, it is Ribis
                    Ketzuzah, for the Rambam says that it is Avak
                    Ribis even without specifying. Or, perhaps
                    Hagahos Ashri holds that without specifying it
                    is a mere Isur, but it is not Avak Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (8):</font></b> The Levush says that even if he
                    specifies, it is only Avak Ribis. This is
                    primary.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>R. Akiva Eiger (DH v'Chosav):</font></b> Tosfos forbids
                    Stam. The Beis Yosef was in doubt about Tosfos'
                    opinion when he specifies. The Rema forbids
                    only when he specified. Surely this is only
                    Avak Ribis!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If he borrowed from him and
               returned the money, he may not give to him a gift
               'due to your money that was idle with me', this is
               Ribis Me'ucheres. If he transgressed and did so, it
               is Avak Ribis.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Lo):</font></b> If he gives a gift before
                    paying the loan, this is proper Ribis. The Tur
                    says so (166).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH v'Yir'eh):</font></b> The Mishnah connotes
                    that we forbid only when he specified that the
                    gift is in order that he will lend to him. Also
                    the Rosh says so. The Mordechai (433) learns
                    from the case of living in the borrower's
                    Chatzer. Also Semak says so, and the Magid
                    Mishneh explains Rashi to say so regarding the
                    case with Ravina.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rambam):</font></b> The Tur says that
                    the Rambam forbids even if he did not mention
                    the reason. This is because the Mishnah is in
                    the second person (that <i>you</i> will lend to
                    me... <i>your</i> money was idle with me), and the
                    Rambam wrote in the third person (that <i>he</i>
                    will lend to him... <i>his</i> money that was idle).
                    Sefer ha'Terumos permits if he normally gives
                    gifts to him, as long as he does not intend for
                    Ribis. The Rambam connotes that if ihe normally
                    used to teach the lender, it is permitted even
                    before the money is returned.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva Eiger (DH Harei):</font></b> Normally, one must
                    return Avak Ribis to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim.
                    Here, he need not (Rema162:2).
<br>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	All the days (of summer) when the ground is dry are the
          same. (We are not concerned lest one day be longer or
          harder to work on than the other.) All the days of the
          Revi'ah (expected days for rainfall) are the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	He may not say 'plow with me today (in summer), and I
          will plow with you in the Revi'ah' (for then it is
          harder).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	R. Gamliel says, there is pre-loan Ribis and post-loan
          Ribis;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven wanted to borrow from Shimon, he may not
               give him a gift 'in order that you will lend to me.'
               This is pre-loan Ribis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven borrowed from Shimon and returned the
               money, he may not give him a gift 'due to the money
               you lent to me.' This is post-loan Ribis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  	R. Shimon says, there is Ribis of words. The borrower may
          not inform the lender of Ploni's coming.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE TRANSGRESSIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Continuation of Mishnah):</font></b> The following transgress a
          Lav: the lender, the borrower, the Arev (guarantor) and
          the witnesses;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Chachamim say, even the scribe transgresses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	They transgress 'Lo Siten', 'Al Tikach me'Ito', 'Lo
          Sihyeh Lo ke'Nosheh', 'Lo Sesimun Alav Neshech' and
          'v'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> If Reuven owes Shimon,
          and he normally did not greet him with Shalom, it is
          forbidden for him to do so. 'Neshech Kol Davar' forbids
          even words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> These transgress...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> The lender transgresses all of them. The
          borrower transgresses 'Lo Sashich l'Achicha', 'ul'Achicha
          Lo Sashich' and 'Lifnei Iver.' The Arev and witnesses
          transgress only 'Lo Sesimun.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Those who lend on Ribis lose more
          than they gain;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Further, they deny the Chachmah of Moshe and the
               truth of his Torah, as if he only forbade Ribis
               because he did not recognize its benefit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Dimi):</font></b> If Reuven cannot pay his debt to Shimon,
          Shimon may not pass in front of him - 'Lo Sihyeh Lo
          k'Nosheh.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Ami and R. Asi):</font></b> It is like giving Reuven two
          punishments - 'va'Esh uva'Mayim.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Anyone who lends money without witnesses
          transgresses 'Lifnei Iver.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Reish Lakish):</font></b> He brings a curse upon himself -
          'Te'alamnah (will become mute) Sifsei Shaker ha'Doveros
          Al Tzadik' (the borrower will deny, and people will
          suspect that he falsely claims from him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Rabanan told Rav Ashi that Ravina fulfills everything
          Chachamim say. To test him, Rav Ashi sent a message on
          Erev Shabbos asking to borrow ten gold pieces, in order
          to buy a piece of land.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> You must send witnesses, we will write a
               document.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Ashi:</font></b> Do you suspect even me?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> All the more so, I suspect someone like you.
               You are always learning. You might forget the loan.
               I would cause a curse to myself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Three people cry and are not answered: one who
          lends money without witnesses, one who acquires a master
          for himself, and one whose wife rules over him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case of one who acquires a master
          for himself?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> He denies his wealth by saying that it belongs
          to a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> He writes his property to his children in his
          lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> It is bad in his city for him, and yet he
          remains there.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK HA'SOCHER <b><b>ES</b></b> HA'UMENIM</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORKERS WHO WERE DECEIVED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven hired workers and they tricked each
          other, they have only complaints against each other;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven hired a donkey-driver or wagon-driver to bring
          wood (for a canopy) or flutes for a wedding or funeral,
          or workers to take his flax from the water it was soaking
          in, or anything that entails a loss (if not done
          immediately), and they retracted:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there are no other workers there (to do the job
               for the proper wage), he hires others for more (and
               those who retracted must pay the excess), or tricks
               the retractors into working.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven hired workers and they retracted, they have the
          lower hand. If Reuven retracts, he has the lower hand.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WHAT MAY A BORROWER SAY TO THE LENDER AFTER HE RECEIVES THE LOAN?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai who says that when a person who receives a loan does not normally volunteer a greeting to the lender, he is forbidden to start greeting the lender because doing so would be a form of Ribis.
</p><p>
Does this mean that a borrower is not allowed to thank a lender for the loan, since his words of thanks are only because of the loan?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH HA'RAV</b> (Hilchos Ribis 9) writes that a borrower may not thank a lender or indicate in another way that he is grateful to him for the loan, or give him a blessing. Based on this, the <b>BRIS YEHUDAH</b> (ch. 10, note 107) rules that a borrower may not say 'thank you' to his lender. He suggests, however, that a borrower may say 'Tizkeh l'Mitzvos' -- 'You should merit to perform Mitzvos.' <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l (<b>IGROS MOSHE</b> YD 1:80) also writes that a borrower may not say 'thank you' to the lender.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> zt'l in <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> (1:27) writes the although many have the custom to act in this manner, the Halachah seems to be the opposite. He says that a borrower is <i>permitted</i> to say 'thank you,' but he may <i>not</i> say 'Tizkeh l'Mitzvos.' Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that 'Tizkeh l'Mitzvos' is a genuine blessing, and thus when the borrower blesses the lender he is giving the lender more than he received. In contrast, when the borrower says 'thank you' he does not give a blessing to the lender; rather, he merely shows that he is not an ungrateful boor.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFER MISHPAT HA'RIBIS</b> (1:34) argues that one is permitted to say 'Yeyasher Kochacha' ('Yasher Ko'ach'), although he adds that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach himself said later that this also is forbidden. He quotes this opinion in the name of <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHEV</b> shlit'a and <b>RAV MOSHER STERNBUCH</b> shlit'a. The Sefer Mishpat ha'Ribis suggests that the Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav only prohibited giving extra blessings, but not acting in a courteous manner of expressing gratitude. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach apparently understands that since the expression of gratitude may be fulfilled by saying 'thank you,' giving a blessing comprises an extra expression of gratitude to the lender which is forbidden.
</p><p>
The Bris Yehudah points out another common situation which may involve Ribis. Often, the author of a Sefer borrows money in order to publish his Sefer and he includes a dedication in the his Sefer in honor of the lender. This seems to pose a problem of Ribis. There are various opinions on the matter (see Bris Yehudah ibid.). Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l (Igros Moshe YD 1:80) writes that if the author of the Sefer writes merely that the lender will be blessed from Heaven because he lent money to publish the Sefer, this is permitted, since the author himself does not bless the lender but says merely that Hash-m blesses people who do Mitzvos. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORKERS WHO WERE DECEIVED (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Continuation of Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone who deviates or
          retracts has the lower hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Opinion #1:</font></b> The Reisha does not say that they
          retracted, rather, they (the workers) tricked each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Reuven told Shimon (a Shali'ach) to hire workers,
          and he tricked them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven offered four (Zuz per day), and Shimon
               told them three, why do they have complaints? They
               accepted to work for three!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Reuven offered three, and Shimon told them
          four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon promised to pay them himself, he must give
               them (the extra Zuz)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Levi hired David to work for
                    himself, and set him to work on what is really
                    Moshe's property, Levi pays David, and can
                    demand from Moshe the benefit Moshe received.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, Shimon said that Reuven will pay
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should see what workers normally receive!
          (If they receive four, Reuven must pay four, for this is
          the benefit he received!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Some workers receive three, and others receive
          four. They may have complaints, for they could have
          looked to find someone who pays four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> (Regular workers receive three.) These workers
          do not usually work for others. They agreed only because
          they were told that they would be paid four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> These were regular workers, they normally
          receive three. They worked extra hard because they were
          told they would be paid four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should see if they worked extra hard!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, they dug a trench around a field.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We can see how they dug it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is filled with water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (to Question (e)):</font></b> Really Reuven offered four,
          and Shimon told them three;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They have complaints, for Shimon prevented them from
               receiving four.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO PEOPLE RELY ON A SHALI'ACH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	The following is obvious. If Reuven offered three, and
          Shimon told them four, and the workers said 'we will work
          for what Reuven said', they (did not mean to accept less
          than four, rather,  they) intended for the possibility
          that Reuven offered more than four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If Reuven offered four, and Shimon told them
          three, and the workers said 'we will work for what Reuven
          said', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Did they believe Shimon, and accept to work for
               three?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, did they suspect that perhaps Reuven offered
               more, and want to get what he offered?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We learn from the following.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If Leah made Levi a Shali'ach to
               bring her Get (she is divorced only when she
               receives it), and he told her husband (Yehudah) 'I
               am a Shali'ach to receive her Get (she is divorced
               through my reception)', and Yehudah said 'take it
               like she said', even when she gets it, she is not
               divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that Yehudah relies on what Levi said. If
               he intended for what Leah really said, Levi would be
               a Shali'ach to bring it, and she would be divorced
               when she gets it!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE OBLIGATION OF AN EMPLOYER TO PAY HIS WORKERS WHEN HE RETRACTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the case of one who hires workers to do a particular job but then decides that he does not want them to do the work. If he retracts after the workers have already gone out to the fields, they are entitled to receive their wages (as much as an idle worker receives, 'k'Po'el Batel').
</p><p>
Why are the workers entitled to receive their wages? The workers did not do any work for which they should be paid!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Gemara refers to a specific case in which the workers -- prior to their arrangement with the employer -- certainly would have found work elsewhere yielding equivalent wages. Accordingly, the employer's withdrawal from the agreement causes harm to the workers, since, as a result of his commitment to employ them, they did not take any other jobs for that time period. The employer must pay them for their lost work because of 'Dina d'Garma,' the law of indirect damages.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, the obligation is limited to this specific case in which the worker could have found other employment elsewhere had he not committed himself to work for this employer, and now that he committed himself to work for this employer he no longer can find other work.
</p><p>
The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (333:2) questions this answer of Tosfos (he quotes the question in the name of his son, Rav Yosef Dov). Why is the employer obligated to pay the workers' loss of potential earnings? The Yerushalmi (5:3) teaches that if one 'ties up' someone else's funds (rendering the owner unable to profit from them), he is exempt from liability because it is considered an indirect cause of loss ('Garma') for which one is exempt. The same should apply in the case of an employer who 'ties up' a worker, indirectly causing him to lose potential earnings from other sources. Why should he be obligated to pay the worker?
</p><p>
The Ketzos ha'Choshen answers that although it is only an indirect cause of loss, the employer still is liable because of the Halachah of 'Sheves.' In the laws of Nezikin, damages, when the damage that the Mazik does results in the loss of work and earnings of the Nizak, the Torah explicitly obligates the Mazik to pay for the lost earnings, despite the fact that it should have been considered an indirect cause of loss for which a person is exempt. Thus, in the Gemara's case, the employer is obligated to compensate for the loss of employment that he caused to the worker due to the law of 'Sheves.'
</p><p>
Alternatively, perhaps Tosfos learns like the <b>RITVA</b>. The Ritva (73b; see Insights there) learns that the employer is obligated to pay the worker for his lost employment not because of the law of Mazik but because of the law of <i>Arev</i>, guarantor. Just as a loan guarantor is obligated to pay back the loan because the lender gave the money to the borrower based on the Arev's word (that he would guarantee the loan), so, too, the employer is obligated to pay the worker because the worker lost other employment based on the word of this employer. Since the obligation to pay the worker is because of the law of Arev, the fact that it is an indirect cause of loss ('Garma') is not relevant. According to the Ritva's understanding of the Gemara, the question of the Ketzos ha'Choshen is answered.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> agrees with the ruling of Tosfos with regard to the employer's obligation to compensate the workers for damage he indirectly caused them, but he asserts that the Gemara need not be limited to the specific case that Tosfos describes. Even in a case where the workers (prior to the contract with this employer) could <i>not</i> have found employment elsewhere, the employer is still liable to pay their wages. The reason for this is that once the worker has already begun his job (such as by walking to the field), the transaction between the worker and the employer is consummated. This Halachah is the same as the Halachah in the case of a standard sale; once a buyer has made a Kinyan he may not retract and is obligated to pay the full price.
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (CM 333:2) rules in accordance with the Ramban. (Y. Marcus)
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORKERS WHO CAUSED A LOSS BY RETRACTING</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 75b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven hired a donkey-driver to
               bring flutes or wood for a wedding or funeral, or
               workers to take soaking flax out of the water, or
               any Davar ha'Avud (he will lose if the job is not
               completed now), and they retracted, if there are no
               other workers there (to do the job for the
               contracted wage), he hires others for more (and
               those who retracted must pay the excess), or tricks
               the retractors.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 76b (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven hired workers and he or
               they retracted, the other party has only complaints.
               This is when the workers did not go to the worksite,
               but if donkey-drivers or workers went and there was
               nothing to carry or the ground was wet and
               unworkable, Reuven pays their full wage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> However, there is a difference between carrying a
               burden and coming without a burden. They are paid
               like idle workers (what one would want to receive to
               consent to rest from work and be idle).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If it is Davar ha'Avud, Reuven hires
               others for more, or he tricks Shimon (the worker).
               To trick him, he says 'originally I promised one
               Sela. Now I offer you two' (but he will pay only
               one). One may pay other workers an extra 40 or 50 at
               Shimon's expense.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> This is if there are no other workers there (who
               agree to Shimon's wage). If other workers are there,
               he hires them. He has only complaints against
               Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 78a - Question:</font></b> How much more may he pay others at
               the expense of the retractors?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He may pay up to the wages.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> He may pay until 40 or 50
               Zuz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> That is when the workers left
               their Klei Umnos (tools of their craft) with Reuven.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (6:6):</font></b> If the workers did not leave
               their Klei Umnos with Reuven and he hired others for
               more than the value of what the first workers did,
               Reuven pays the excess.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (46b DH Aval):</font></b> Regarding Davar
                    ha'Avud, even before they started working, even
                    though they did not deposit their Kelim and it
                    is a mere verbal agreement, they are liable up
                    to their wages if the price of labor will rise.
                    The Rashba says that this is only if Reuven
                    could have found other workers when he hired
                    these, and now he does not find other workers,
                    so the first caused a loss to him. If he could
                    not have found other workers, they are exempt,
                    for they did not cause a loss to him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (CM 333 DH Kasuv):</font></b> Talmidei
                    ha'Rashba says that regarding Davar ha'Avud,
                    even if he could not have found other workers,
                    they are liable, for one is not silent when he
                    sees his money being lost. Presumably, he would
                    have found workers through toil and adding a
                    little to their wages. However, if workers
                    could not find other employment (Hagahos Tur
                    ha'Shalem 31 - and Reuven retracted), he is
                    exempt. We do not say that they could have
                    toiled to find work, for one can seek work all
                    day and not find it. This is when they did not
                    yet begin working. If they began, he must pay
                    their full wage if they cannot find other work.
                    The beginning of work is a Kinyan. This is why
                    the Gemara says 'if donkey-drivers went...',
                    for their going is the beginning of their work.
                    Even if they could not have hired themselves
                    elsewhere, he pays their full wage. Some say
                    that even if workers could not have found other
                    employment, since now they cannot find other
                    work, Reuven is liable, even if they did not
                    yet begin working. We say that they could have
                    toiled to find work, just like we say that an
                    employer would have toiled to find workers.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Nimukei Yosef (46b DH Ad):</font></b> If he did not hire
                    other workers and lost due to the delay, the
                    retractors need not pay. They accepted (through
                    leaving their Kelim) only for the loss of
                    hiring other workers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 9:4):</font></b> If Reuven's workers
               retracted from Davar ha'Avud, e.g. his flax must be
               removed from the water it is soaking in, or he hired
               a donkey-driver to bring flutes for a wedding or
               funeral, whether he hired standard workers (e.g. by
               the day) or Kablanim (they accepted to do the task
               for a set wage), the workers can retract only if
               Ones occurred, e.g. illness or death of a relative.
               If they retracted without Ones, Reuven hires others
               for more at the expense of the retractors or tricks
               them. To trick them, he says 'I hired you for one.
               Take two, and finish the job', and he gives to them
               only what he initially promised. Even if he gave to
               them two, he takes back the addition. To hire others
               at their expense, he hires others workers to avoid a
               loss. Whatever he pays the latter workers more than
               he promised to the retractors, he takes from the
               retractors. If he had money of the retractors, he
               may pay the latter workers up to 40 or 50 Zuz per
               day per worker, even though the worker received only
               three or four. This is when he cannot find other
               workers to finish the job for the initial wage. If
               such workers are available, he hires them and has
               only complaints against the retractors. For a
               standard worker, we estimate the value of what he
               did. If he was a Kablan, we estimate the value of
               what remains to be done.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> It seems that if the retraction
                    caused a loss, the retractors must pay due to
                    Garmi, just like an employer who caused a loss
                    to workers. He is liable even for words without
                    a Kinyan. However, Reuven may take from the
                    retractors up to their wages to pay extra to
                    the latter workers, and if he had the
                    retractors' money, up to 40 or 50. If this is
                    due to Garmi, it should apply even if Reuven
                    does not have their money! Rav Nachman collects
                    for Garmi! We must say that this is when the
                    retractors caused no loss to Reuven, e.g. the
                    flax was already soaked and when he hired
                    these, there were no other workers to hire.
                    Nevertheless, since he hired them, if they do
                    not finish he can trick them or hire others at
                    their expense. Even regarding flutes and wood
                    for a wedding or funeral, in which there is no
                    monetary loss, he can trick them or hire others
                    at their expense.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Terumas ha'Deshen (329):</font></b> If a worker retracted
                    due to Ones, even if the job was Davar ha'Avud,
                    he receives according to what he did. A Kablan
                    receives according to how much it will cost to
                    finish the job. If a rich person and his wife
                    are not used to labors, if they hired a servant
                    this is like Davar ha'Avud. This requires
                    investigation. Workers need not pay for a non-
                    monetary Davar ha'Avud, for Garmi applies only
                    to money.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 333:6):</font></b> To hire others at their
               expense, he hires others workers to avoid a loss.
               Whatever he pays the latter workers more than he
               promised to the retractors, he takes from the
               retractors up to their wages. If he had their money,
               he may pay the latter workers up to 40 or 50 Zuz per
               day per worker, even though the worker only received
               three or four.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If he did not hire other workers, the
               retractors need not pay for the loss he suffered.
               Some say that the Heter to pay the latter workers up
               to 40 or 50 Zuz at their expense is only when he has
               their Kelim, but not when he has other things. This
               applies only to Davar ha'Avud that is not money,
               e.g. a teacher or similar matters, but if there is a
               monetary loss, the retractor pays the full loss.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mordechai (349):</font></b> A case occurred in which a
                    teacher retracted after six days. He had left
                    his Sefer for security with Reuven. Reuven
                    needed to hire another teacher for more money,
                    and wanted to collect the excess from the
                    Sefer. Rabbeinu Meir said that he cannot, for
                    it is more than his wages. We permit up to 40
                    or 50 only when a worker deposited his Klei
                    Umnos, for then Reuven is more confident that
                    the worker cannot work elsewhere. It seems that
                    Rashi, the Rivan and R. Chananel agree.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Darchei Moshe (5):</font></b> It seems that the Tur and
                    Rambam disagree. Terumas ha'Deshen (329) rules
                    like Rabbeinu Meir, but only regarding a Davar
                    ha'Avud that entails no monetary loss, such as
                    a teacher. If there is monetary loss, he must
                    pay the entire loss due to Garmi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Ramban Zal):</font></b> The
                    Ramban says that even though before depositing
                    their Kelim it is a mere verbal agreement, they
                    are liable up to their wages. They resolved
                    like this from the beginning; there is no way
                    to make a Kinyan. However, if he did not hire
                    other workers and lost due to the delay, the
                    workers do not pay. They did not accept upon
                    themselves to pay. As long as they did not
                    become Shomrim, they are exempt even if they
                    were negligent.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (38):</font></b> When they did not deposit their
                    Klei Umnos, Reuven can seize something else
                    only up to the value of their wages. Normally,
                    one can seize anything.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (39):</font></b> The Rema understood that the
                    Nimukei Yosef exempts workers regarding Davar
                    ha'Avud when there is no monetary loss. Really,
                    the Nimukei Yosef exempts even when there is
                    monetary loss. I say that there is no argument.
                    The Nimukei Yosef and Ramban discuss when
                    Reuven could have hired others, just he
                    delayed, therefore, the workers are exempt.
                    Hagahos Ashri and Terumas ha'Deshen discuss
                    when he could not find anyone to hire, or the
                    loss occurred immediately.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (40):</font></b> The obligation is due to Garmi. The
                    Nimukei Yosef disagrees, but the Rema holds
                    like him only when the loss is not monetary.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>WORKERS WHO RETRACTED FROM DAVAR HA'AVUD </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


