Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Gittin 3:7 ירושלמי גיטין ג׳:ז׳
Part of: Chapter 3
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָימִין וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת כֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי. מֵתוּ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אִם הִלְוָום בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת.
MISHNAH: If somebody128A farmer gave a loan to potential recipients of his heave and tithes with the understanding that they do not have to repay the loan but that the farmer will separate both heaves for the account of the Cohen, sell the heaves to another Cohen, and credit the receipt to the Cohen’s account with him, reducing the amount owed. Similarly, he will separate first tithe on the Levite’s account and tithe of the poor for the poor man, deduct the fair value of the produce from his account and eat the tithes himself with his family, since tithes are permitted food for anybody. lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich129Once the poor person becomes disqualified for public assistance, he has to inform the farmer.. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs130They might want to pay off the outstanding balance to establish a record of good credit.; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission131If the setup was part of a public document, the heirs would have to negotiate with the farmer to change its terms..
MISHNAH: If somebody128A farmer gave a loan to potential recipients of his heave and tithes with the understanding that they do not have to repay the loan but that the farmer will separate both heaves for the account of the Cohen, sell the heaves to another Cohen, and credit the receipt to the Cohen’s account with him, reducing the amount owed. Similarly, he will separate first tithe on the Levite’s account and tithe of the poor for the poor man, deduct the fair value of the produce from his account and eat the tithes himself with his family, since tithes are permitted food for anybody. lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich129Once the poor person becomes disqualified for public assistance, he has to inform the farmer.. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs130They might want to pay off the outstanding balance to establish a record of good credit.; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission131If the setup was part of a public document, the heirs would have to negotiate with the farmer to change its terms..
הלכה: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֲלִיפִּין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. וְרִבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵיב. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא בְקַיָים. בְּרַם הָכָא עַד כְּדוֹן בָּעֵי מִיזְרַע. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּמַכָּרֵי כְהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן עָנִי. וְיֵשׁ מַכָּר לְעָנִי. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי. כֹּהֵן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה חַיָיב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָעוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ. הַפְרֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם מֵחֶלְקִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן אֶלָּא. הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקוֹ. כְּשֶׁהִלְוָוהוּ עַל מְנָת כֵּן. הָא לֹא הִלְוָוהוּ עַל מְנָת כֵּן לֹא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא הִלְוָהוּ עַל מְנָת כֵּן. חֵילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא מִן הָדָא. וְכֵן בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה חַיָיב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָעוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶן. הַפְרֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקִי. וְלֹא יְהֵא גוֹבֶה וּמַפְרִישׁ. שֶׁאֵין לֵוִי עוֹשֶׂה לֵוִי. שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר אֶלָּא. לֹא יְהֵא מַפְרִישׁ. הָא מִשֶׁלּוֹ מַפְרִישׁ.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there132Mishnah Bekhorot 2:8. The Mishnah speaks of a rancher whose ewe gave birth to twin lambs, one of which is a firstling but it is not known which. A firstling has to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 15:19); it may not be shorn (or, if a calf, used for work). The rancher can fulfill his monetary obligation by giving one of the two lambs to the Cohen; the other lamb has to be put out to graze until it develops a defect; then it can be eaten by its owner (Deut. 15:21–22). If it was known which lamb was a firstling, that one would have to be given to the Cohen and if the other lamb were slaughtered, some parts would have to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 18:3). But in the case under consideration, R. Yose holds that no gifts to the Cohen are due since potentially the lamb was the Cohen’s and a Cohen who slaughters does not have to give away anything. He equates potential possession and real possession. The application to the Mishnah here is that the Cohen can dispose of the heave as if he had received it.
R. Meїr holds that the gifts are due since they would be due if it was known which one was the firstling.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Ulla’s opinion.: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow133Since nobody can acquire anything nonexistent (Ketubot 5:5, Note 113), R. Yose’s argument cannot be applied to our case.! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites134The expression is Biblical (2K. 12:6,8); it refers to people who regularly give all their priestly gifts or tithes to the same Cohen or Levite. Then heave and tithes have the status of annuities and cannot be said to be nonexistent.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Rav’s opinion. Samuel requires that heave or tithes be actually given to a third party Cohen or Levite, acting as recipient for the debtor, who then returns the produce to the farmer. That opinion has no parallel in the Yerushalmi.. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances135The tithe of the poor has to be given to the first poor person who applies.? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him136After the loan was given, the debtor then asked to be excused from repayment using the method outlined in the Mishnah., separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following137Tosephta Demay 7:15. The Levite cannot tell the Israel to arrange with other farmers that they pay him to give tithes for them and deduct the sum from the Levite’s debt, since no Levite can dispose of another Levite’s tithes.: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate138Missing in the text: Other people’s tithes., but from his own he may separate.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there132Mishnah Bekhorot 2:8. The Mishnah speaks of a rancher whose ewe gave birth to twin lambs, one of which is a firstling but it is not known which. A firstling has to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 15:19); it may not be shorn (or, if a calf, used for work). The rancher can fulfill his monetary obligation by giving one of the two lambs to the Cohen; the other lamb has to be put out to graze until it develops a defect; then it can be eaten by its owner (Deut. 15:21–22). If it was known which lamb was a firstling, that one would have to be given to the Cohen and if the other lamb were slaughtered, some parts would have to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 18:3). But in the case under consideration, R. Yose holds that no gifts to the Cohen are due since potentially the lamb was the Cohen’s and a Cohen who slaughters does not have to give away anything. He equates potential possession and real possession. The application to the Mishnah here is that the Cohen can dispose of the heave as if he had received it.
R. Meїr holds that the gifts are due since they would be due if it was known which one was the firstling.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Ulla’s opinion.: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow133Since nobody can acquire anything nonexistent (Ketubot 5:5, Note 113), R. Yose’s argument cannot be applied to our case.! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites134The expression is Biblical (2K. 12:6,8); it refers to people who regularly give all their priestly gifts or tithes to the same Cohen or Levite. Then heave and tithes have the status of annuities and cannot be said to be nonexistent.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Rav’s opinion. Samuel requires that heave or tithes be actually given to a third party Cohen or Levite, acting as recipient for the debtor, who then returns the produce to the farmer. That opinion has no parallel in the Yerushalmi.. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances135The tithe of the poor has to be given to the first poor person who applies.? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him136After the loan was given, the debtor then asked to be excused from repayment using the method outlined in the Mishnah., separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following137Tosephta Demay 7:15. The Levite cannot tell the Israel to arrange with other farmers that they pay him to give tithes for them and deduct the sum from the Levite’s debt, since no Levite can dispose of another Levite’s tithes.: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate138Missing in the text: Other people’s tithes., but from his own he may separate.
לֵית כָּאן אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. אֲבָל חוֹשֵׁשׁ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשִׁיר הֶעָנִי. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הֶעָנִי וְאֶת הֶעָשִׁיר אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד.
There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry lest the poor became rich. It was stated so139It seems that the text is slightly corrupt; the translation follows the text of Tosephta 3:1: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הֶעָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד. This is also the Yerushalmi text quoted in many medieval authors, cf. Tosefta ki-Fshuta Giṭṭin p. 824, Note 16. The last clause means that if the poor person temporarily became rich (i. e., was ineligible for public welfare as defined in Peah 9:9) and then poor again, the lender cannot use the tithe of the poor of the time of ineligibility but must give it away to another poor person since that tithe was lost for the borrower. The Yerushalmi text considers poor and rich as different persons residing in the same body since they fall in different legal categories.: “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”
There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry lest the poor became rich. It was stated so139It seems that the text is slightly corrupt; the translation follows the text of Tosephta 3:1: הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הֶעָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עַל הָאָבוּד. This is also the Yerushalmi text quoted in many medieval authors, cf. Tosefta ki-Fshuta Giṭṭin p. 824, Note 16. The last clause means that if the poor person temporarily became rich (i. e., was ineligible for public welfare as defined in Peah 9:9) and then poor again, the lender cannot use the tithe of the poor of the time of ineligibility but must give it away to another poor person since that tithe was lost for the borrower. The Yerushalmi text considers poor and rich as different persons residing in the same body since they fall in different legal categories.: “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”
רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר עוּקְבָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בְּיוֹרְשֵי כְהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָיה הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל בְּיוֹרְשֵׁי עָנִי אֵין לְעָנִי נַחֲלָה. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. אֵין לָךְ אָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא לִידֵי מִידָּה זוֹ. אִם לֹא הוּא בְנוֹ. אִם לֹא בְנוֹ בֶּן בְּנוֹ. הָדָא אָמְרָה. יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. הַמַּלְוֶה מָהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר וְאֶת הֶעָנִי אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִין עַל הָאָבוּד. וְזָכָה הֶעָנִי בְּמַה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ. הָדָא אָמְרָה הַמַּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name139aThis probably should read “son of”. of Rebbi Ḥanina: The Mishnah speaks of the heirs in priesthood and Levitic status140The creditor has to renew the contract if the heirs are priests or Levites. This excludes the poor from this rule, as well as cases in which a Cohen or Levite has only daughters married to Israel husbands.. But concerning the poor, the poor has no inheritance. Bar Qappara stated: No person is immune from this141Poverty.; if not he then his son, if not his son then his grandson. This142“This” is not Bar Qappara’s homily but the Tosephta stated earlier and repeated later, that the poor debtor who became rich cannot continue the arrangement but must pay off the debt. This means that if the circumstances change, the debtor can change the terms to terms less favorable to him. means, he can change the terms. Can the creditor change the terms? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody lends money to a first rich and then poor person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost and the poor acquired what is in his hand.143The last sentence is also in the Tosephta, Note 139, quoted in the Babli, 30b. If the poor remains rich, the creditor has no way to recoup his money.” This implies that the creditor cannot change the terms144In the Tosephta, 3:1, this is an explicit statement. In the Babli, 30a, both the statement that the debtor can change the arrangement but the creditor cannot are attributed to the late Amora Rav Papa; both Talmudim are unaware of the Tosephta..
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name139aThis probably should read “son of”. of Rebbi Ḥanina: The Mishnah speaks of the heirs in priesthood and Levitic status140The creditor has to renew the contract if the heirs are priests or Levites. This excludes the poor from this rule, as well as cases in which a Cohen or Levite has only daughters married to Israel husbands.. But concerning the poor, the poor has no inheritance. Bar Qappara stated: No person is immune from this141Poverty.; if not he then his son, if not his son then his grandson. This142“This” is not Bar Qappara’s homily but the Tosephta stated earlier and repeated later, that the poor debtor who became rich cannot continue the arrangement but must pay off the debt. This means that if the circumstances change, the debtor can change the terms to terms less favorable to him. means, he can change the terms. Can the creditor change the terms? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody lends money to a first rich and then poor person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost and the poor acquired what is in his hand.143The last sentence is also in the Tosephta, Note 139, quoted in the Babli, 30b. If the poor remains rich, the creditor has no way to recoup his money.” This implies that the creditor cannot change the terms144In the Tosephta, 3:1, this is an explicit statement. In the Babli, 30a, both the statement that the debtor can change the arrangement but the creditor cannot are attributed to the late Amora Rav Papa; both Talmudim are unaware of the Tosephta..
לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל דְּרַב. דְּרַב אָמַר. יוֹרֵשׁ כִּמְשׁוּעֲבָד. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִלְוֶה בְּעֵדִים נִגְבֵּית מִן הַמְשׁוּעֲבָדִין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ נִגְבֵּית מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמִלְוֶה בִשְׁטָר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִלְוֶה בְּעֵדִים נִגְבֵּית מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וּבִלְבַד יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ קַרְקַע. כְּהָדָא אִילֵּין דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה אַשְׁאִלוֹן לְצִיבּוּרַיָיא פְּרִיטִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. לֵית צִיבּוּר כּוּלֵּיהּ עֲתִר לֵית צִיבּוּר כּוּלֵּיהּ מֵיעֲנִי.
Does this145The statement that after the Cohen’s death the creditor has to renew the agreement with his heirs. not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property146In rabbinic practice, mortgages are not written on specified parcels but are liens on all real estate the debtor owned at the time the loan was given. If such real estate is later sold, the lien of the mortgage holder is not removed; if the debtor cannot pay, the creditor can foreclose from the buyer. A loan arrangement made orally before witnesses is not a mortgage; the loan can be foreclosed neither from any buyer nor from debtor’s property subject to another person’s lien. If the loan cannot be foreclosed, there seems to be no reason why the creditor can ask anything from the heirs., so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan147A mortgage.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate148He agrees that a loan cannot be foreclosed from encumbered property, but if the debtor has unencumbered property, free of any lien, it can be foreclosed on the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, as long as the heirs inherit any real estate (in the language of the Babli, 30b, at least the area covered by a needle), the oral loan remains in force and the creditor has reason to approach the heirs.. As149This is an illustration of the Mishnah, not of the preceding rules. those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public150They advanced money to the public welfare fund, to be repaid from future collections. The question was raised whether money collected for the relief of the poor can be diverted to repay the capitalists. The answer is positive since the committee overseeing charity always will have clients on whose behalf they took the money in the first place and on whose behalf they may repay.. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.
Does this145The statement that after the Cohen’s death the creditor has to renew the agreement with his heirs. not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property146In rabbinic practice, mortgages are not written on specified parcels but are liens on all real estate the debtor owned at the time the loan was given. If such real estate is later sold, the lien of the mortgage holder is not removed; if the debtor cannot pay, the creditor can foreclose from the buyer. A loan arrangement made orally before witnesses is not a mortgage; the loan can be foreclosed neither from any buyer nor from debtor’s property subject to another person’s lien. If the loan cannot be foreclosed, there seems to be no reason why the creditor can ask anything from the heirs., so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan147A mortgage.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate148He agrees that a loan cannot be foreclosed from encumbered property, but if the debtor has unencumbered property, free of any lien, it can be foreclosed on the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, as long as the heirs inherit any real estate (in the language of the Babli, 30b, at least the area covered by a needle), the oral loan remains in force and the creditor has reason to approach the heirs.. As149This is an illustration of the Mishnah, not of the preceding rules. those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public150They advanced money to the public welfare fund, to be repaid from future collections. The question was raised whether money collected for the relief of the poor can be diverted to repay the capitalists. The answer is positive since the committee overseeing charity always will have clients on whose behalf they took the money in the first place and on whose behalf they may repay.. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.