Gittin 30a — the Talmud in English

For when the court appoints an agent

in place of an agent who came from overseas: is the agent appointed specifically

in the presence

of the first agent,

or

perhaps even

not in his presence?

The matter was subsequently resolved

by Rava:

A court appoints an agent

both in his presence and not in his presence.

And likewise

they sent from there [

from the Land of Israel]:

both in his presence and not in his presence.

An incident involving

a certain

man

who

gave a bill of divorce to his wife, and

said: If I do not come by thirty days, let it be a bill of divorce!

That is, he stipulated that the divorce would take effect only if he did not return to this city within thirty days, and if he returned, the divorce would be annulled.

And he went from there, and

came

back toward the end of the stated period. And he reached as far as the city, except that he could not enter it, because

the ferry passage blocked him [

the water crossing interrupted him, for the ferry was on the other side of the river and he could not cross].

He said to them

from his place beyond the river, to the people of the city:

See that I have come, see that I have come [

see that I have come, see that I have come]!

And he intended to say: The condition that I stipulated has been nullified, for I have come; therefore the bill of divorce is not a bill of divorce.

Shmuel said:

His condition was not fulfilled, and the divorce took effect properly, and was not annulled. Since he did not enter the city,

it is not called coming [

this is not called coming to the city]; that is, although he did not come because of circumstances beyond his control, ultimately he did not come.

And the reason is either because “there is no coercion with bills of divorce,” that is, a claim of coercion is not effective at all with conditions of bills of divorce, and even if the condition of the divorce was fulfilled through coercion, the divorce takes effect; and even according to the one who maintains, “there is coercion with bills of divorce,” since this coercion is a common coercion, he should have stipulated this in advance.

An incident involving

a certain

man

who said to them

at the time of delivering the bill of divorce:

If I do not appease her by thirty days [

if I do not appease my wife by thirty days]

let it be a bill of divorce

from now.

He went and appeased her

with words and increased entreaties to her so that she would become reconciled to him,

but she was not appeased.

Rav Yosef said:

The divorce takes effect, for

did he give her a tarkav of dinars [

did he give her three kav of dinars]

and

nevertheless

she was not appeased!?

But he did not give her [that sum], and it is not significant that he appeased her, for this too is included in his condition: that he appease her even with a great thing, until she becomes reconciled to him. It follows that the condition was fulfilled that if he did not appease her, the divorce would take effect.

There are those who say

as follows:

Rav Yosef said: Does he need to give her a tarkav of dinars!?

He appeased her, but she was not appeased [

Does he need to give her a tarkav of dinars!? He appeased her with what was necessary, but she was not reconciled].

That is: Since he is coerced from fulfilling his condition, for he does not have so much money, it is impossible for the divorce to take effect through a condition fulfilled under coercion.

And the Gemara explains:

This—

the latter formulation—

is in accordance with the one who says, “

There is coercion with bills of divorce.”

This—the first formulation—

is in accordance with the one who says, “

There is no coercion with bills of divorce.”

Incidentally to the Mishna taught above, 28a: “One who brings a bill of divorce and leaves it with an elderly man or a sick man gives it to her on the presumption that he is alive,” the following two Mishnayot were taught here.

Mishna:

One who lends money to a priest, to a Levite, or to a poor person,

on condition

that he will separate on their account from their portion,

that is: if he stipulated with them that he would repay his debt from the teruma, first tithe, or poor tithe that he would eventually separate, so that instead of giving them to them, he would take them for himself in repayment of his debt. This is

what he separates on their account

and takes for himself,

on the presumption that they are [

the lenders]

alive, and he need not be concerned lest the priest or the Levite died, or

lest

the poor person became wealthy,

with the result that he robs the tribe or the poor, and likewise he does not fulfill the mitzva of giving.

And if

they died,

the lenders, then the lender

must obtain permission from the heirs

to continue doing so, for their father’s debt is not imposed upon them to repay. Therefore he obtains permission from them if they wish their father’s debt to be received through the gifts, and if they give him permission, he keeps them for himself.

And

if he lent to them in the presence of a court,

and the lenders died,

he need not obtain permission from the heirs,

because the court has the power to impose this debt upon the entire tribe and upon all the poor, for it is an enactment for all of them, so that money for lending should be found for them.

Gemara:

The Gemara is astonished concerning what is explained in the Mishna, that he can stipulate to take his gifts in repayment of his debt,

and

it is implied:

even though they have not yet come into his possession [

even though the gifts have not yet come into the possession of the lenders] and he returns them to the lender—

And how is it possible that, without any giving at all, the one who separates may take them for himself!? For the gifts still belong not to the lenders but to the entire tribe and to all the poor, and how can they give them to their lender!? And furthermore: how has the lender fulfilled the obligation of giving, as long as he has not given his gifts!?

Rav said: It is

with lenders who were

acquaintances of the priesthood and the Levites

that our Mishna is dealing.

That is: the lenders were acquaintances of the lender, and the lender was accustomed to give his gifts only to them. Since it was clear that the lender would give his gifts to them, the others had already withdrawn their minds from the gifts, and it was as though the gifts had come into the possession of these people.

And Shmuel said:

Our Mishna deals

with one who grants possession

to the lender

for them [

for the Levites] of the gifts

through others,

after he separated them; and afterward the lender takes them for himself.

Ulla said: Whose opinion is this—

our Mishna—

It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says

in several places:

the Sages made

the one who

does not acquire as one who acquires.

That is: because of the enactment, the Sages granted acquisition even to one who is not fit to acquire. Here too, because of the enactment that people would be found to lend to them, they instituted that the priest, Levite, and poor person would acquire the gifts; therefore, the lender may take them as repayment of his debt.

That is: because of the enactment, the Sages granted acquisition even to one who is not fit to be an acquirer. Here too, because of the enactment that people who would lend to them should be found, they instituted that the priest, Levite, and poor person would acquire the gifts; therefore the lender can take them in repayment of his debt.

And the Gemara explains:

all of them

[Rav, Shmuel, and Ulla]

did not state like Rav

in order to explain our Mishna, because

“among the acquaintances”

of the priesthood and the Levite status

it does not teach

in our Mishna, and it implies that he may separate even when the Levites are not his acquaintances.

And all of them [Rav and Ulla]

did not state like Shmuel

in order to explain our Mishna, because

“by conferring ownership upon them”

through another

it does not teach

in our Mishna.

All of them [Rav and Shmuel]

also did not state like Ulla,

because

we do not establish it according to an individual

[the Mishna may not be explained as the view of an individual].

The Sages taught:

a. One who gives money to a merchant on the condition that he will sell him his produce when it grows is forbidden to stipulate with him that he will give him the produce according to its present price, because of the prohibition of interest. For perhaps the price of the produce at the time of delivery will be higher than its price at the time of the stipulation, and it will turn out that the giver profits from the difference in return for the money that he advanced to the merchant; and there is in this a prohibition of interest by rabbinic enactment.

b. If “the market price has been established,” it is permitted to stipulate according to today’s price, and it is even permitted for him to stipulate that if the price at the time of delivery will be lower than today’s price, he will receive it according to the lower price.

b. One who lends money to his fellow and the year of remission arrived—the debt is remitted at the end of the year of remission, and this is called “remission of debts.”

One who lends money to the priest, to the Levite, or to the poor person, in order to separate for them from their portion, separates for them on the presumption that they are alive,

as is explained in our Mishna.

And he stipulates with them according to the lower price,

as will be explained later in the Gemara—

and there is no issue of interest in it,

even though he advanced his money before the market price had been established.

And the seventh year does not cancel it,

as the Gemara explains the reason and proceeds.

And if he came to retract

the lender

does not retract,

and it explains this and proceeds.

If the owners despaired

of the debt, then

he no longer separates for them,

that is to say: if he lent money to the priest on the condition that he would take his terumot of that year, and the lender saw that his fields had been blighted and despaired of collecting his debt, and afterward his fields were restored, he may not take the teruma and the tithe against his debt,

because one does not separate

teruma and tithe for oneself

against

the debt

that was lost.

The Master said

in the beraita:

“He stipulates with them according to the lower price”:

It enters our minds that the beraita comes to teach that it is permitted for the lender to stipulate with the borrowers that he will receive the teruma at the present price even if the price rises, while, conversely, if the price of the teruma falls, he will receive the teruma according to the lower price; and therefore we wonder:

But

is it obvious

that wherever stipulation is permitted, it is permitted for him to stipulate according to the present price, and if the price falls he will receive it according to the lower price? And since in this stipulation concerning the teruma there is in fact no interest, he may also stipulate with him concerning the lower price!?

And we answer: The beraita does not come to permit him to stipulate with him according to the lower price, but rather

this it teaches us: even though he did not stipulate

with the borrowers concerning the lower price,

it is considered as though he stipulated

so explicitly

he is considered.

We learned in the beraita:

“And there is no issue of interest in it”:

And we explain:

What is the reason

—after all, there is here an advance of money, which is forbidden because of rabbinic interest!?

Since when he does not have

teruma for the lender from his field—and, for example, his fields were blighted—

he does not give him

the borrower [the borrower does not repay him with other money as repayment of his debt], therefore

when he does have

the lender

also

produce in his field,

there is no issue of interest in it,

because he is close to loss, in the event that his fields are blighted, and in such a case it was not prohibited because of interest.

We learned in the beraita:

“And the seventh year does not cancel it”:

And the Gemara explains the reason: because

we do not call it

“he may press him”,

for he cannot demand anything from him; rather, he takes only his terumot.

We learned in the beraita:

“And if he came to retract, he does not retract”:

Rav Pappa said:

They taught

—that he cannot retract—

only in the case of a householder with a priest,

that is to say: the lender cannot retract and say, “I do not want to take teruma as repayment of my debt; rather, pay me my debt.”

But in the case of a priest with a householder, if he wishes to retract,

that is to say: if the priest said to the householder, “I do not want you to take teruma as repayment of your debt; rather, take your money,” then he

may retract.

For

behold

we learned:

“He gave him

the purchaser to the seller

money, but did not draw from him

yet the

produce,

he is

able to retract,” because “money does not acquire”; and this priest, too, can retract, because although the lender gave money for the teruma, the lender still did not draw it.

because “money does not effect acquisition.” This priest may likewise retract, because although the lender gave money for the teruma, the lender still had not taken possession of it.

We learned in the beraita:

“The owners despaired; one does not separate for them, because one does not separate for that which was lost”:

The Gemara wonders:

“Is it obvious!?”

And we answer:

It is necessary where it had already grown in the stalk,

for the grain had already risen in the stalk, and then it dried out and he despaired; and there is a novel point in this:

it might enter your mind to say that the recovery is something significant,

for once they have risen in the stalk, even if they dry out, they return and recover, and it is uncommon for them to be completely ruined, and if so, this is not a proper despair.

It teaches us

that it is despair, and he forfeited his debt.

It was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: One who lends money to the priest and to the Levite through a court, and they died,

he

separates for them on the presumption of that tribe.

And

the one who lends

to the poor person through a court, and he died,

the poor person, the lender

separates for him on the presumption of the poor of Israel.

Rabbi Akhai says: On the presumption of the poor of the world.

And the Gemara interrupts the bringing of the beraita in order to explain it:

What is between them

between the first tanna and Rabbi Akhai?