כי היכי דלא ליטרדן‎—In order that he should not bother us OVERVIEW אביי ורבא maintain that a person may pay תוך זמנו, in order that he should not be bothered later when the monies are due, when he may not have the money to pay. תוספות will be citing other גמרות namely concerning פדיון הבן and tenants, where the גמרא explicitly states that in those cases אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו‎. This seems to contradict the view of אביי ורבא‎. Our תוספות will reconcile these differences. ------------------------- תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: אף על גב דבפרק יש בכור (בכורות דף מט, א ושם) תנן בכור בתוך שלשים יום בחזקת שלא נפדה‎ – Even though that we have learnt in a משנה in בכור יש פרק that a firstborn son during the first thirty days after his birth it is assumed that he was not redeemed. This seems to contradict the views of אביי ורבא who maintain that a person pays his debt even זמנו תוך in order that דלא לטרדן‎. תוספות responds: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהתם לא שייך האי טעמא דלא ליטרדן דהוי ממון שאין לו תובעין – And the ר"י says that there in the case of a בכור the reason of ליטרדן דלא is not applicable; we cannot assume that the father redeemed his son in order that he should not be bothered by the כהן for the five שקלים, for the money owed for the פדיון הבן is considered as monies for which there is no creditor. No כהן can demand payment for these five שקלים from the father. The father has the option of giving the פדיון הבן money to whichever כהן he chooses. There is no one who will ever bother the father for the money. In this case even אביי ורבא agree that אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו‎. תוספות questions this (previous) premise: מיהו קשיא לרבי מפרק השואל (בבא מציעא דף קב, ב ושם) דאמר בעו מיניה מרבי ינאי‎ – However my רבי has a difficulty from the גמרא in השואל פרק for the גמרא relates; רבי ינאי was asked what would be the ruling, where a tenant rented a house from a landlord – שוכר אומר נתתי ומשכיר אומר לא נטלתי על מי להביא ראיה – The tenant claims I paid the rent and the landlord states I did not receive the rent; the question is on whom lies the responsibility to bring proof to his claim. The גמרא there continues to explore this query – אימת אי בתוך זמנו תנינא מת בתוך שלשים יום בחזקת שלא נפדה‎ – When did this dispute take place; if the dispute took place during the time, i.e. before the rent was due, and the tenant claimed that he had already paid the rent, that we have learnt in a משנה that if the father died within thirty days of the birth of the בכור it is assumed that he was not redeemed; because אאפת"ז, the same ruling should apply by a משכיר ושוכר‎. The שוכר is presumed not to have paid since it is בתוך זמנו‎. Therefore we cannot be discussing such a case of תו"ז for the שוכר will definitely not be believed. This concludes the quote from the גמרא that is relevant to our discussion. תוספות will now proceed with his question – והשתא היכי מדמי לה לבכור דהתם לא שייך למימר לא ליטרדן‎ – But now that תוספות just explained that by the case of בכור everyone agrees that אאפת"ז since the reason of דלא לטרדן does not apply, how can the גמרא compare the case of משכיר ושוכר to the case of בכור, for there by בכור the reason of לא לטרדן is not applicable, for it is ממון שאין לו תובעין; therefore he is assumed not to have paid תוך זמנו‎. תוספות continues that on account of this גמרא we must rethink the status of כי היכא דלא ליטרדן in regards to בכור‎. ולכך צריך לומר דבכור נמי איכא טירדא דמצוה שצריך מיד ליתן דזריזין מקדימין – And therefore, since we see that the גמרא compares בכור to משכיר ושוכר, we are required to say that by a בכור there is also the pressure of a טירדה דמצוה‎. The father wants this pressure of fulfilling the מצוה to be removed from him. The טרדה דמצוה is that one is obligated to give the money of פדיון הבן immediately when the child is thirty days old. The reason that there is a requirement to give it immediately on the thirtieth day without delay is because for those who are eager to perform a מצוה do it at the earliest opportunity. תוספות has resolved that by משכיר ושוכר as well as by בכור there is a certain טרדה‎. Nonetheless in both cases we assume that it was not paid תוך זמנו‎. The original question therefore remains. How can אביי ורבא maintain that on account of טרדה a person is תוך זמנו פורע, when we see that by בכור and משכיר ושוכר they do not pay זמנו תוך‎? תוספות presently addresses this issue. ומפרש רבינו יצחק טעם אחר‎ – And the ר"י explains the difference between our case of הלואה and the cases of פדיון הבן and משכיר ושוכר with a different reason; not because that פדיון הבן is a ממון שאין לו תובעין‎ – דהכא כיון דחייב לו ואיתרמי ליה זוזי פורע לו תוך הזמן דלא ליטרדן‎ – for here by a loan since the לוה definitely owes the מלוה and the לוה happens to have money, therefore the לוה will pay the מלוה even before the due date, in order that the מלוה should not bother the לוה from the due date onwards; for he may not still have the money then – אבל גבי בכור דאכתי לא איחייב כלל עד לאחר ל' יום ושמא ימות בתוך ל' ויפטר‎ – However by a בכור, the father will not redeem the בכור before the thirty days are up for the father is not yet obligated at all to be פודה his son until after thirty days have passed and perhaps the child will die within the thirty days and the father will be entirely exempt from פדיון הבן‎. Therefore by פדה"ב the father does not pay before the due date. וכן שוכר שמא יפול ביתו של משכיר ויצטרך שוכר לצאת דלא עדיף מיניה‎ – And similarly by a renter; for perhaps the landlord’s own house will collapse and the tenant will be required to leave his rented house so that the landlord will have where to live for the tenant is not preferred over the landlord. תוספות has a different question: ומיהו קשיא הא דפריך לריש לקיש מכותל חצר שנפל‎ – However there is another difficulty, that which the גמרא challenges the opinion of ר"ל, who maintains that אאפת"ז, from the case in our משנה concerning a dividing wall that collapsed in a חצר‎. The משנה rules that it is בחזקת שנתן even תוך זמנו (according to the מקשה) – ודייק מיניה דעביד איניש דפרע בגו זימניה‎ – And the מקשה infers from this ruling that it is plausible that a person pays before the due date. This seemingly contradicts the view of ר"ל. This concludes תוספות citation of the גמרא‎. תוספות continues with his question. Why is the גמרא asking this question only on ר"ל‎? לאביי ורבא נמי תיקשי דמודו התם דלא עביד דפרע דשמא לא יבנה זה את הכותל – It is difficult for אביי ורבא as well; for even though that generally they maintain that אדם פורע תוך זמנו, however they will admit in that case of a כותל that it is not usual that he would pay before the due date. For (according to the הו"א) the case of כותל is similar to פדיון הבן and משכיר ושוכר for perhaps the other party will not build the wall. תוספות answers: ומיהו בכמה מקומות יכול לומר וליטעמיך ולא קאמר: However it is not such a difficulty; for in many instances the גמרא could have challenged the questioner by saying ‘and according to your opinion’ does not the same difficulty apply; however, the גמרא does not pose this counter challenge. SUMMARY אביי ורבא maintain that (by a loan) אדם פת"ז. By פדיון הבן as well as by a משכיר ושוכר the גמרא states explicitly that they do not pay תו"ז. Originally תוספות sought to differentiate between פדה"ב and a הלואה that by פדה"ב it is ממון שאין לו תובעין therefore there is no טרדה‎. תוספות had to rescind this opinion since the גמרא compares פדה"ב to שוכר; proving that by פדה"ב there is also טרדה דמצוה‎. The difference between מלוה and פדה"ב ושוכר is that by a מלוה the לוה definitely owes the money (even תו"ז); however by פדה"ב ושוכר (there is nothing owed תוך זמנו and) there is a possibility that it will never be owed. Therefore it will not be paid תו"ז. According to this, by כותל חצר שנפל if it is considered תו"ז then אביי ורבא would also agree with ר"ל that he will not pay תו"ז. THINKING IT OVER 1. What is the original difficulty from בכור‎? אביי ורבא maintain that it is possible for a person to pay תוך זמנו, therefore if he claims so, he is believed, By בכור, however, no one is claiming that the בכור was redeemed, therefore we assume that he was not redeemed! 2. What is the דין if the father was פודה his בכור before the child was thirty days old? 3. תוספות explains that by a שוכר it is possible that he will not have to pay, because שמא יפול ביתו של משכיר‎. Why does not תוספות say that שמא יפול ביתו של שוכר‎? 4. In the second ת"ש the גמרא cites the משנה of בחזקת שלא נתן‎. The גמרא assumes that he claims פרעתיך בתוך זמני and therefore he is not believed. This contradicts אביי ורבא‎. However according to תוספות who maintains that אביי ורבא agree that where there is a ספק if he will be חייב then אאפת"ז, in this case also there is a ספק if he himself will build this wall. Therefore he will not pay תו"ז, until he builds the wall!
אילימא דאמר ליה פרעתיך בזמני פשיטא‎—If you will say; that he said to him ‘I paid you on time’, then it is obvious! OVERVIEW לקיש ריש maintains that אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו‎. The גמרא challenges this view from our משנה of כותל חצר שנפל, where the נתבע is believed that he paid for his share in the wall. The גמרא analyzes this statement. When does the נתבע claim that he paid the תובע‎? It certainly cannot mean that he claims that he paid him after the wall was built; for then it is obvious that he is believed. A נתבע is always believed to claim פרעתיך בזמנו, unless the תובע can prove otherwise. תוספות questions this assumption that it is obvious that the נתבע is believed. Our situation seems similar to a case of המלוה את חבירו בעדים‎. Based on the dispute whether המלוה את חברו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים or not, it would not seem so obvious that the נתבע is believed without עדים‎. ----------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי פשיטא הא כיון דאין אדם פורע תוך זמנו ואנן סהדי שזה עשה כותל – And if you will say; why is it so obvious that the defendant (נתבע) is believed, when he claims that he paid for the expenses of the wall on time. Perhaps it is not so obvious for since a person does not pay up his debt before it is due, we can therefore safely assume that no monies were paid by the נתבע before the wall was built and we (בי"ד) are witnesses that the plaintiff (תובע) built the wall. Therefore, since בי"ד knows for sure that the נתבע owed the תובע money – איצטריך לאשמועינן דאין צריך לפורעו בעדים – It is necessary for the תנא of the משנה to let us know that it is not necessary for the נתבע to pay the תובע in the presence of witnesses. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאפילו מאן דאמר גבי מלוה חבירו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים‎ – And one can say that even according to the one who maintains concerning one who lends money in the presence of עדים, that the לוה is required to repay him in the presence of עדים; otherwise the לוה cannot claim פרעתי‎. That is only – התם משום דלא הימניה מעיקרא‎ – There, in the case where he lent him the money in the presence of witnesses because the מלוה did not originally trust the לוה‎. אבל הכא ליכא שום הוכחה דלא הימניה הילכך פשיטא דאין צריך לפורעו בעדים: However here in the case of the fallen wall, there is no proof at all that the תובע does not trust the נתבע, therefore it is obvious that the נתבע is not obligated to pay him in the presence of witnesses; even according to the מ"ד of המלוה את חברו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים‎. SUMMARY Even if we maintain that the משנה is comparable to a חיוב בעדים, nevertheless it is still פשיטא that the נתבע is believed to claim פרעתי בזמנו even without עדים‎. The דין of צריך לפורעו בעדים is only when the loan was made in the presence of עדים; which indicates his distrust of the לוה‎. In our משנה there is no such indication. THINKING IT OVER 1. Seemingly this תוספות is redundant. Can we differentiate between our תוספות and תוס' ד"ה ובא (ה, א [וב']) whether צריך לפורעו בעדים‎? 2. In תוספות question; would our משנה contradict the view of the מ"ד that המלוה את חברו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים‎?
ואפילו מיתמי‎ — ואף על גב דאמור רבנן הבא ליפרע כולי‎—And even from orphans. And even though the רבנן rule, one who comes to collect, etc. OVERVIEW There are two statements in the גמרא concerning whether or how a creditor may collect from יתומים; where the creditor has a שטר that their deceased father owed him money. One statement is cited here that הבא ליפרע מכנסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה; that the מלוה may collect from יתומים only if he swears to substantiate his claim; that the father did not pay and the monies are still owed. This rule applies to יתומים גדולים (and also to יתומים קטנים where applicable). A second statement, in the name of רב אסי, is that לנכסי יתומין אא"כ רבית אוכלת בהם אין נזקקין; that we do not get involved to pay off the debts of יתומים (even with a שבועה), unless their assets are being consumed by the interest payments. This rule applies (only) to יתומים קטנים‎. There is a dispute as to the reason for this second rule. רב פפא maintains that we cannot collect from יתומים קטנים, since the obligation of repaying a debt is (merely!!) a מצוה; therefore יתומים קטנים who are not obligated to perform מצות are exempt from paying the debt (as long as they are קטנים). רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע maintains that the reason we cannot collect from יתומים קטנים is because there is a concern perhaps the father placed a bundle of valuables ('צררי') by the creditor before he died. The גמרא states that there will be a practical difference between these two reasons in a case where the לוה admitted owing the money immediately before he died. According to ר"ה בדר"י, we will collect from the יתומים קטנים, since there is no concern of any payment. However according to רב פפא we cannot collect from the יתומים קטנים since they are לאו בני מיעבד מצוה‎. Our גמרא states that the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז is so strong than one may collect from יתומים without a שבועה if the father died תו"ז. The issue תוספות will be discussing is (according to ר"ה בדר"י) what is the ruling in a case of יתומים קטנים, where the לוה died תוך זמנו‎. Are יתומים קטנים also included in the ‘ואפילו מיתמי’ or not. Do we say that the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז is equal to an admission from the לוה that he owes the money, and therefore we may collect even from יתומים קטנים (בלא שבועה), or we may not collect? ----------------------------------- נראה דביתומים גדולים מיירי אבל בקטנים לא גבי אפילו תוך זמנו‎ – It appears that we are discussing (only) mature orphans; those that are over בר מצוה‎. It is only in that case that the מלוה can collect their father’s debt from the יתומים without a שבועה if it was תוך זמנו – however if the יתומים are minors – under בר מצוה‎ – the creditor will not be able to collect his debt from the estate of the קטנים, which their father left them even if it was within the time; before the loan was due. Even if the father died before the due date of the loan, whereby we should assume that the loan was not paid, nevertheless the מלוה cannot collect the loan from the estate of the יתומים קטנים‎. תוספות expounds on this statement that we cannot collect from יתומים קטנים even if the father died תוך זמנו: לרב פפא דמפרש טעמא דאין נזקקין משום פריעת בעל חוב מצוה‎ – [And this is unquestionably certain] according to רב פפא who explains the reason for the law which states that we do not assign the properties of יתומים קטנים (to pay off debts), unless their assets are being consumed by the accumulating interest on the loan. Otherwise we wait until the יתומים mature and become גדולים‎. The reason for this law according to רב פפא is because it is a מצוה to pay the creditor; that is the reason why a loan must be paid, however – ויתמי לאו בני מיעבד מצוה נינהו‎ – And since minor orphans are not required to do מצות, therefore there is no need to pay the loan, as long as they are minors. According to רב פפא, therefore, it is quite obvious that even though it is תוך זמנו, nevertheless we do not collect from the יתמי קטני, since they are לאו מיעבד מצוה בני‎. ואפילו לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דמפרש טעמא משום צררי‎ – However, even according to ר"ה בדר"י who argues with רב פפא and he explains the reason for the aforementioned דין of לנכסי יתומין (קטנים) אא"כ רבית אוכלת בהם אין נזקקין, is because we are concerned that perhaps the debtor handed the creditor a bundle containing valuables, as collateral for the debt. Therefore we cannot collect from the יתומים because perhaps the loan was already paid. It would seem that according to ר"ה בדר"י, if the father died תוך זמנו where there is no concern of צררי, since אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו, one should be able to collect from the יתומים קטנים (at least with a שבועה). Nonetheless, תוספות maintains that – לא גבי מיתמי קטנים אפילו תוך זמנו דאין מקבלים עדים שלא בפני בעל דין‎ – He cannot collect from minor יתומים even according to ר"ה בדר"י even if the father died תוך זמנו, so there is (seemingly) no concern for צררי, nevertheless the מלוה cannot collect because בי"ד does not accept witnesses in the absence of the opposing litigant – דקטנים חשוב שלא בפניו כדמוכח בריש פרק הגוזל בתרא (בבא קמא דף קיב, א) – For minors are considered as if they are not present, as is evident in the beginning of פרק הגוזל בתרא‎. תוספות will discuss a new case: ואפילו נתקבלה עדות בחיי האב מצית למימר דחיישינן לצררי אפילו תוך הזמן בקטנים – And the aforementioned rule applies even if the testimony was accepted during the father’s lifetime; and בי"ד ascertained that the לוה owes the מלוה money. The father subsequently died, before the מלוה was able to collect the debt. One may have thought that according to ר"ה בדר"י the מלוה can collect from the estate. There is no problem of קבלת עדות שלא בפני בע"ד, since that was already done האב בחיי‎. There is seemingly also no concern of צררי, since it is תוך זמנו‎. Nevertheless, he cannot collect from the יתומים‎. The reason is, for we can [still] say that by קטנים we are concerned for צררי even if it is תוך זמנו‎. תוספות will prove his point that there can be a חשש צררי even תוך זמנו: כדאשכחן גבי אלמנה בפרק השולח (גיטין דף לד, ב ושם) – As we find this same concern by a widow in השולח פרק‎ – דתנן אין האלמנה נפרעת מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה‎ – For we learnt there in a משנה; ‘a widow cannot collect her כתובה from the assets of the orphans unless she swears’ that her former husband did not pay her any part of the כתובה during his lifetime – וטעמא משום שמא התפיסה הבעל צררי אף על פי שהוא תוך הזמן – And the reason why she cannot collect without a שבועה because we are concerned that perhaps the husband placed צררי in her possession; even though while the husband was alive it was תוך זמנו‎. The time of payment for a כתובה is after (a divorce or after) the husband’s death. The fact that the אלמנה must swear, proves that the חשש of צררי exists even if it is תוך זמנו‎. Therefore it is possible that by יתומים קטנים we are also concerned for צררי even תוך זמנו‎. תוספות explains that the similarity to אלמנה is not a compelling proof: ומיהו מאלמנה אין ראיה דהתם חיישינן לצררי אפילו בגדולים‎ – However there can be no conclusive proof from the case of אלמנה that there is a חשש צררי even תוך זמנו by יתומים קטנים, for there by אלמנה we are concerned for צררי even by adult יתומים; she cannot collect from them without a שבועה‎. However by a מלוה ולוה if there are adult יתומים and it was תוך זמנו the מלוה can collect even without a שבועה, as we learnt in our גמרא‎. Therefore it is obvious that there is a difference between the כתובה of an אלמנה and a regular loan. The reason why by an אלמנה we are חושש for צררי even תוך זמנו and even by יתומים גדולים is – משום דאית לה בתנאי בית דין‎ – Because she is owed the כתובה by a stipulation of בי"ד. תוספות goes on to prove that there is a difference, in regards to the concern of צררי, between a self-imposed obligation and a תנאי בי"ד. כדאמרינן בהנושא (כתובות דף קב, ב ושם) דחיישינן טפי לצררי בבנותיו מבבת אשתו – As the גמרא states in פרק הנושא that we are more concerned that he deposited צררי concerning his obligation for his daughters, than we concerned for צררי concerning his obligation for his wife’s daughter. The reason we are more concerned בבנותיו is – משום כיון דאיתנהו בתנאי בית דין אימור צררי אתפסינהו – Because since his obligation to his daughters is stipulated by בי"ד; and it is not a self-imposed obligation as בת אשתו, therefore I can say that perhaps he deposited צררי by בנותיו in order to fulfill his תנאי בי"ד. However by בת אשתו we are not concerned that צררי אתפסינהו since it is a self-imposed obligation and not a תנאי בי"ד. We can derive from this גמרא that there is a greater concern for צררי when we are dealing with תנאי בי"ד. Similarly there is a greater concern of צררי by an אלמנה even though it is תוך זמנו since his obligation to her is a תנאי בי"ד. However by a regular הלואה perhaps we are not concerned for צררי if it is תוך זמנו, even by קטנים‎. To summarize: According to רב פפא one cannot collect from יתומים קטנים even תוך זמנו because they are לאו בני מיעבד מצוה נינהו‎. According to ר"ה בדר"י if בי"ד did not accept the testimony of the מלוה while the father was alive, the מלוה cannot collect from יתומים קטנים, since אין מקבלין עדות שלא בפני בע"ד. The question is, according to ר"ה בדר"י can the מלוה collect from יתומים קטנים if the testimony was already accepted האב בחיי, Are we concerned for צררי or not. The fact that by אלמנה we are concerned for צררי even though it is תוך זמנו does not prove that the same applies by a הלואה‎. The case of אלמנה is different since he owes her the money בתנאי בי"ד as opposed to הלואה which is a self-imposed חיוב‎. תוספות anticipates a possible proof from our גמרא that one cannot collect from יתומים קטנים תוך זמנו, and rejects it. The גמרא, when it wants to convey to us the strength of the חזקה that א"א פורע תו"ז, states that even though generally one cannot collect from (גדולים) יתומים נכסי only with a שבועה, nevertheless if it is תוך זמנו one may collect from (גדולים) יתומים even without a שבועה‎. The proposed proof is that if the דין would be that you may collect תוך זמנו even from יתומים קטנים, the גמרא should have cited a different rule. תוספות offers the proposed proof: ואין להביא ראיה מדלא קאמר הכא‎ – And one cannot bring proof that the מלוה cannot collect from יתומים קטנים תו"ז from the fact that the גמרא did not state here a different citation than which the גמרא actually states. The גמרא should have stated – אף על גב דאמור רבנן אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים קטנים אלא אם כן רבית אוכלת בהן כולי‎ – Even though the רבנן said ‘we do not assign the assets of יתומים קטנים for collection unless the interest due is consuming those assets, etc.’ nevertheless if it is תוך זמנו the מלוה would collect even from קטנים יתומים. The fact that the גמרא chose this quote as opposed to 'וכו קטנים יתומים אין נזקקין לנכסי (seemingly) proves – דלא מיירי בקטנים אלא דוקא בגדולים‎ – That we are not discussing קטנים יתומים, that one may collect from them but rather we are discussing specifically only יתומים גדולים‎. If the דין would be that even by יתומים קטנים one may collect from them תוך זמנו the גמרא should have cited the other דין of אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים קטנים וכו'. This concludes the proposed proof from our גמרא that we cannot collect from קטנים even if it is תוך זמנו‎. תוספות rejects this proof. In reality according to יר"ה בדר"י one may collect from יתומים קטנים if it is תוך זמנו; the reason why the גמרא does not cite the other rule which would indicate that we may collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו is – דשמא משום רב פפא נקט מילתיה בגדולים‎ – That perhaps on account of רב פפא who definitely maintains that one cannot collect from יתמי קטני in any event, therefore he chose a case of יתומים גדולים‎. The בעל הגמרא did not want to get involved in this מחלוקת between רב פפא and ר"ה בדר"י whether one may collect from יתמי קטני‎. Therefore he chose to discuss only יתומים גדולים where all will agree that we may collect from them תוך זמנו‎. In truth however, perhaps according to ר"ה בדר"י one may collect from יתמי קטני תו"ז. תוספות offers another rejection to the proposed proof: אי נמי נקט ההוא דהבא ליפרע לאשמועינן דגבי אפילו בלא שבועה‎ – Or we may also say the גמרא cites this quote to teach us that תוך זמנו, one may collect from יתומים even without a שבועה‎. It is possible that you may collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו (according to ר"ה בדר"י) and the reason the גמרא did not cite the other quotation of אין נזקקים לנכסי 'כו יתומים קטנים is because there is a certain disadvantage in that quote versus the quote the גמרא actually uses; the quote of הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה‎. תוספות offers an additional proof that we cannot collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו and rejects it: ואין להביא ראיה משלהי דמכילתין (דף קעד, ב) – And one cannot bring proof from the end of our מסכת that we cannot collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו‎ – דקאמר מאי בינייהו דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע‎ – Where the גמרא asks, ‘what is the practical difference between the reasons of רב פפא and ר"ה בדר"י’? What ramifications are there להלכה‎? – ולא קאמר איכא בינייהו כגון דמית לוה תוך הזמן דלרב הונא גבי‎ – And the גמרא does not respond: there is a practical difference between them for instance where the לוה dies before the due date: according to ר"ה בדר"י the מלוה may collect even from יתמי קטני since there is no חשש of צררי because the לוה died תוך זמנו‎. However according to רב פפא the מלוה cannot collect from the יתמי קטני since they are לאו בני מיעבד מצוה‎. The fact that the גמרא does not offer this difference is proof that this difference does not exist. Even according to ר"ה בדר"י one cannot collect from יתמי קטני because of צררי‎. תוספות rejects this proof. In reality if one would maintain the reason of צררי, then the מלוה would be able to collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו, since we maintain חזקה א"א פורע תו"ז. However the גמרא cannot cite this case as a בינייהו מאי between רב פפא and ר"ה בדר"י דהא רב הונא ורב פפא אמר בשמעתין דלית להו חזקה דריש לקיש‎ – For concerning ר"ה בדר"י and רב פפא, our גמרא states (on this עמוד) they do not agree with the חזקה of ר"ל that א"א פורע תו"ז; but rather they maintain that אדם פורע תו"ז. Therefore it is understood that both ר"ה בדר"י and רב פפא agree that we cannot collect from (יתמי (קטני since there is a possibility that the לוה paid the loan תוך זמנו before he died. Our discussion was only according to us; we who maintain the opinion of ר"ל that א"א פורע תו"ז and assume the view of ר"ה בדר"י concerning צררי, what would be the הלכה for us. תוספות offers an additional rejection of this latter proof. In reality according to the view of צררי the מלוה may collect from יתמי קטני תוך זמנו‎. However one cannot ask, why did not the גמרא mention this difference (between רב פפא and ר"ה בדר"י [as well]). ועוד דבכמה מקומות יכול למצוא איכא בינייהו טובא‎ – And furthermore the lack of mentioning this additional בינייהו איכא is no proof that ר"ה בדר"י agrees with פ"ר in תו"ז For in many instances the גמרא can find many practical differences between the disputing opinions – ואינו חושש לומר אלא דבר אחד או שנים – However the גמרא is not concerned to mention all the differences; rather it suffices to mention merely one or two differences. כדאמרינן בהמניח (בבא קמא דף לג, ב ושם דיבור המתחיל הקדישו) גבי פלוגתא דיושם השור‎ – As we say in פרק המניח concerning the argument between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא whether the goring ox is assessed or confiscated. The גמרא there gives (only) one practical difference between these two opinions. תוספות there maintains that there are other practical differences between these two opinions, nevertheless the גמרא is satisfied with one. Similarly in this dispute the גמרא (in פרק גט פשוט) is satisfied by offering two differences between רב פפא and ר"ה בדר"י, even though there may be more, including that according to ר"ה בדר"י you may collect from יתמי קטני, but not according to רב פפא‎. תוספות will now offer a (more acceptable) proof that even according to ר"ה בדר"י the מלוה cannot collect from יתמי קטניeven תוך זמנו‎. מיהו יש להביא ראיה דאפילו רב הונא דמפרש טעמא משום צררי‎ – However we can bring a proof that even according to ר"ה בדר"י who explains that the reason one may not collect from (קטנים) יתומים is on account of צררי – לא גבי מיתומים קטנים אפילו תוך הזמן‎ – One may not collect from יתמי קטני even הזמן תוך‎. תוספות continues with his proof – דפריך עליה דרב אסי בפרק שום היתומים (ערכין דף כב, א ושם) – For the גמרא asks on the statement of אסי רב in היתומים שום פרק‎. It is רב אסי who states that.(קטנים) אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים אא"כ רבית אוכלת בהם‎. The גמרא there asks that this statement seems to contradict the משנה there in ערכין‎ – ודחיק עלה לשנויי בבעל חוב שקיבל עליו לזו ולא לזו‎ – And the גמרא forces itself to resolve the contradiction, by answering that the משנה is discussing a gentile מלוה that he accepted upon himself to follow this assessment procedure of thirty days, but he did not accept upon himself to forgo the interest. Therefore since there is interest charged against the assets of the יתומים קטנים therefore בי"ד assigns their property for collection. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in ערכין‎. תוספות continues with his proof – ולא משני הכא במאי עסקינן בשלא הגיע הזמן בחיי האב‎ – But the גמרא does not resolve the contradiction, by saying that here in the משנה we are discussing a case that the due date did not arrive during the lifetime of the father; that is why we may collect from the יתומים‎. This explanation of the משנה according to רב אסי is much more reasonable than the explanation that the גמרא offers. Why indeed did the גמרא not offer this explanation? The answer is that the גמרא cannot offer this explanation for even if the father died before the due date, nevertheless a ישראל will not be able to collect from יתמי קטני even תוך זמנו‎. תוספות anticipates a possible refutation of this proof and rejects it. ואין לומר דההיא סוגיא סברה כטעמא דרב פפא‎ – And we cannot argue the reason the גמרא did not offer this answer is because that גמרא (that gave this answer) accepts the reasoning of רב פפא who maintains that the reason one cannot collect from יתמי קטני is because they are לאו בני מיעבד מצוה‎. It makes no difference if it is תו"ז or not. However if we would maintain the opinion of ר"ה בדר"י then the מלוה would be able to collect מיתמי קטני תוך זמנו‎. תוספות rejects this refutation. That סוגיא cannot be following the opinion of רב פפא‎ – דהא במסקנא משני כשחייב מודה והאי שינויא ליתא אליבא דטעמא דרב פפא‎ – For in the conclusion of that סוגיא the גמרא resolves the contradiction that the משנה there is discussing a case where the debtor (לוה) admitted right before he died that he owes the money. In such a case we may collect from יתמי קטני‎. The fact that the גמרא gives this answer proves that the סוגיא there does not agree with the opinion of רב פפא, for this answer, that the לוה admitted that he owes the money, is not valid according to the reasoning of רב פפא‎. תוספות brought a proof from the הגמרא סוגית‎. Now תוספות will bring an additional proof from רב אסי himself that we cannot collect מיתמי קטני תוך זמנו‎. וכן יש להוכיח מגופיה דמילתיה דרב אסי דקאמר אלא אם כן רבית אוכלת בהן‎ – And similarly we can prove that we cannot collect תוך זמנו קטני מיתמי from the words of רב אסי himself; not only from the הגמרא סוגית (that it did not give the תירוץ of תוך זמנו); for רב אסי stated that unless they are consumed by interest one may not assign their properties. This limiting phrase אא"כ רבית אוכלת בהם indicates that only on account of רבית one may collect from יתמי קטני, but not under any other circumstances; even if it is תוך זמנו‎. ורבי יוחנן אינו מוסיף כי אם כתובת אשה משום מזוני‎ – and ר"י does not add any other exception to the rule of רב אסי except for a כתובה of a woman, which may be collected from יתמי קטני; for if we do not pay off the כתובה immediately the widow will be sustained and fed at the expense of the יתומים‎. משמע בעל חוב לא משתכח בשום ענין דנפרעין‎ – This indicates that by a מלוה we cannot find any case where he collects from יתמי קטני even תוך זמנו‎. תוספות anticipates the following objection. This may not be a conclusive proof. It is possible that רב אסי ור"י maintain that א"א פורע תו"ז, therefore קטנים יתומים מנכסי נפרעין אין even תו"ז. Our discussion however is according to those who maintain the חזקה of ר"ל that א"א פורע תו"ז. תוספות replies: ומסתמא רב אסי ורבי יוחנן אית להו חזקה דריש לקיש דהכי הלכתא כדפסיק בשמעתין‎ – And it is assumable that רב אסי and ר"י maintain the חזקה of ר"ל that א"א פורע תו"ז for that is the הלכה as our גמרא concludes. Therefore since we do not find explicitly that רב אסי ור"י argue with ר"ל it is assumed that they concur with him. תוספות will offer additional proof that (רב אסי and) ר"י concur[s] with ר"ל. ועוד אי לית להו חזקה דריש לקיש א"כ קיימא לן כריש לקיש בארבעה דברים‎ – And furthermore if ר"י [and רב אסי] do not maintain the חזקה of ר"ל; there would then be a מחלוקת between ר"י ור"ל whether אדם פורע תוך זמנו‎. Our גמרא rules in favor of ר"ל. This will cause a difficulty for then it would come out that we accept the opinion of ר"ל against the opinion of ר"י in four instances; this dispute being the fourth. ובריש החולץ (יבמות דף לו, א ושם) לא פסיק רבא כוותיה אלא בתלת‎ – And in the beginning of החולץ פרק, רבא did not rule according to ר"ל against ר"י only in three instances; our case of תו"ז is not included in the three. If ר"י argues with ר"ל concerning תוך זמנו, and our גמרא rules in favor of ר"ל, then רבא should have mentioned a fourth case wherein we rule according to ר"ל against ר"י. The fact that רבא omits this case proves that ר"י does not argue with ר"ל concerning תו"ז. תוספות anticipates a further difficulty with this proof. Perhaps ר"י does argue with ר"ל concerning תו"ז. However רבא does not mentioned this as a fourth case where the הלכה is like ר"ל and not like ר"י (even though our גמרא clearly maintains that the הלכה is like ר"ל). The reason is because רבא cannot say that the הלכה is like ר"ל by תו"ז; תוספות addresses this issue: אף על גב דרבא ודאי פליג אריש לקיש בשמעתין‎ – Even though רבא certainly argues on ר"ל in our גמרא‎. He definitely cannot maintain that the הלכה is like ר"ל and not like זמנו בתוך ר"י since he himself argues with ר"ל and maintains the view of ר"י. We therefore have no conclusive evidence that ר"י maintains א"א פורע תו"ז. Perhaps that is why he maintains that you may not collect from יתמי קטני‎. However what proof is there that if the הלכה is like ר"ל nevertheless one cannot collect from יתמי קטני‎? תוספות responds that we cannot say that ר"ל ור"י argue over תו"ז for then the הלכה would be like ר"ל in four places not only the three that רבא mentions. Even though we understand why רבא does not mention this as a fourth instance – מכל מקום גם לדידן מוכח דלא קיימא לן כריש לקיש אלא בתלת‎ – Nevertheless it is evident that even we who follow the opinion of ר"ל concerning תו"ז; that we do not follow the opinion of ר"ל against ר"י only in the three cases (that רבא mentions), therefore it is obvious that ר"ל ור"י agree that א"א פורע תו"ז, and nevertheless ר"י ורב אסי agree that a מלוה can never collect יתמי קטני מנכסי even if it is תוך זמנו (unless רבית אוכלת בהם). תוספות mentioned previously that the סוגיא in ערכין wherein רב אסי ור"י made their statements, follows the view of צררי and not the view of רב פפא‎. Our תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this assumption: ובפרק ד' וה' (בבא קמא דף לט, א ושם) דפריך לרבי יוחנן דאמר מעליית יתומים‎ – And in פרק ד' וה' where the גמרא challenges the view of ר"י who maintains that if a מועד ox of the יתומים estate gored another ox we collect for the damages from the assets of the יתומים‎. The גמרא challenges this ruling for ר"י contradicts himself – והאמר רבי יוחנן אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים אלא לכתובת אשה‎ – For ר"י maintains we do not assign from the assets of the יתומים for collection only for the purpose of giving a woman her כתובה‎. Why do we collect from the נכסי יתומים for the goring of their ox? This concludes the quote from the גמרא‎. תוספות proceeds to explain the difficulty with what was previously mentioned – אף על גב דקיימא לן דטעמא הוי משום צררי והתם בשור שנגח לא שייך צררי‎ – Even though we established that the reason we do not collect from יתומים is because of צררי and not because of נינהו מצוה מיעבד בני לאו יתמי; therefore the s'גמרא question is not understood, for there, by the case where the ox that belonged to their estate gored, and ר"י obligated them to pay from their estate, the concern of צררי is not applicable, for the liability was incurred after the father died. It would seem that if the only concern is צררי the יתומים should be liable. How can the גמרא compare the case of שור שנגח to the case of a loan that was made to the father? תוספות replies: מכל מקום פריך שפיר דרבי יוחנן אית ליה אין נזקקין בכל ענין‎ – Nevertheless even though the reason of צררי is not applicable by שנגח שור, the s'גמרא question is proper for ר"י maintains that we never assess the assets of יתומים in any event – אפילו במלוה הבא מחמת עצמו דלא שייך צררי‎ – even by a loan which was generated by the יתום himself; the יתום borrowed the money where the concern of צררי is not applicable; nevertheless one cannot collect יתמי מנכסי, this is on account of – מטעם דאין מקבלין עדות שלא בפני בעל דין: The reason; for בי"ד does not accept testimony in the absence of the opposing litigant. קטנים, as mentioned earlier in תוספות, are considered שלא בפני בע"ד. SUMMARY תוספות maintains that (according to רב פפא and) even according to ר"ה בדר"י one cannot collect from יתומים קטנים even if the לוה died תו"ז. The reason is because by יתומים קטנים we are concerned for צררי even תו"ז. We find a (similar) חשש of צררי תו"ז by an אלמנה‎.The proof that we do not collect מיתמי קטני תו"ז is: a) from the fact that the גמרא did not reconcile רב אסי and the משנה of שום היתומים, by saying that the משנה is discussing a case of תו"ז; and b) from the statements of רב אסי and ר"י which limit the collection from יתמי קטני to the instances of רבית אוכלת בהם and כתובת אשה exclusively; but no other – including תו"ז. THINKING IT OVER 1. If יתמי קטני are included in the rule of 'אין מקבלין עדות שלא בפני בע"ד', why is it necessary for ר"ה בדר"י to offer the reason of צררי‎? 2. Why does תוספות find it necessary to offer a second explanation as to why the גמרא did not say that the נפק"מ between פ"ר and ר"ה בדר"י is in a case of מית לוה בתוך הזמן‎? 3. What proof is there from the fact that the גמרא did not answer that the משנה is discussing a case where מית לוה קודם זמן; perhaps that גמרא holds that אדם פורע תו"ז‎?
אף על גב דאמור רבנן הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים כולי‎—Even though the רבנן said; ‘he who comes to collect from the assets of orphans, etc.’ OVERVIEW Our גמרא and others refer to a well-known ruling that הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה‎. Our תוספות is searching for the source of this ruling in a משנה‎. -------------------------- ותניא נמי בפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פז, א ושם) – And it is also stated in a ברייתא in פרק הכותב – אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים הבא ליפרע כולי‎ – ‘However what can I do, for the חכמים stated: that he who comes to collect, etc. from יתומים must swear’. The fact that this ruling is quoted in a ברייתא preceded by the phrase שהרי אמרו חכמים‎ – משמע שהיא משנה בשום מקום – indicates that it is a quote from a משנה somewhere. The ברייתא is quoting a known ruling. Such a universal ruling would be stated in a משנה‎. תוספות asks: ותימה היכא אמרו חכמים דמאלמנה ליכא למילף דשאני אלמנה דאית לה בתנאי בית דין‎ – And this is puzzling; for where have the חכמים stated this ruling in a משנה‎. For we cannot derive this ruling of הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה, from the case of אלמנה, for אלמנה is different from other debts and obligations, for she is owed the כתובה by virtue of a stipulation of בי"ד; it is not a self-imposed obligation as other debts are. וחיישינן לצררי טפי – And therefore by אלמנה we are more concerned about the possibility of צררי; that the husband may have presented her (while he was alive) with a bundle of valuables to cover his כתובה obligation. Therefore she must swear. However by a regular loan since the מלוה is holding the שטר, there may be no need for a שבועה‎. Where then is the Mishnaic source for the ruling that 'הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים וכו‎? תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק מדתנן בפרק הכותב (שם דף פד, א) גבי מי שמת והניח אשה ובעל חוב‎ – And the ר"י said that the source is from the משנה in פרק הכותב which states concerning one who died and left over debts to his wife (כתובה) and/or a creditor to whom he owed a loan – והיה לו מלוה ופקדון ביד אחרים כולי יתנו ליורשים – And he possessed either a loan or a deposit by others, etc. He was a creditor as well; he was owed money. The question is how these owed assets should be distributed; should they be given to the wife for her כתובה or to the מלוה for his loan, etc. The משנה states that these owed assets should be given to the heirs; not to the אשה ובעל חוב‎. The reason is as the משנה there continues – שכולם צריכים שבועה ואין היורשין צריכין שבועה‎ – For all the creditors require an oath to collect from the assets of the deceased (which belong to the heirs), however the heirs are not required to swear in order to collect their inheritance. We see from that משנה that both the אלמנה and the (מלוה) בעל חוב cannot collect from the estate of the יורשים--יתומים unless they swear. תוספות offers an additional source: ועוד תנן בשבועות (דף מה, א) וכן היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה וכולי‎ – And furthermore we learnt in a משנה in מסכת שבועות; and similarly orphans of the creditor who wish to collect from the orphans of the debtor they may not collect unless they swear, etc.; Even though they have a שטר that the deceased debtor owed their deceased father money. What do the creditor’s orphans swear? The משנה continues – שלא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע‎ – ‘That we have not found among the documents of our deceased father that this note was paid’ – אלמא גם האב היה נשבע שאינו פרוע‎ – We derive from this that the (creditor) father would also have to swear that the note was not paid up. If the father would be able to collect from the יתומים of the לוה without a שבועה, why impose a שבועה on his children?! They should inherit his right of collection! The fact that they are required to swear proves that their father would not be able to collect without an oath; therefore we allow them to collect only if they swear. תוספות concludes: מכאן משמע שאם הוציא שטר חוב על חבירו ואמר ליה אישתבע לי דלא פרעתיך בגו זימניה‎ – it seems from this גמרא that if one presented a note against his friend; stating that he owes him money and the לוה said to the מלוה swear before me that I did not pay you before the due date, the דין would be that the מלוה‎ – אין צריך לעשות שבועה: is not required to take this oath. If the דין would be that the לוה can force the מלוה to take this oath, then by יתומים the מלוה would also be required to take the oath even if the לוה died תוך זמנו and the יתומים are not requesting this oath. The דין is that בי"ד presents on behalf of the יתומים any claim that their father could have claimed. If the father can demand a שבועה תו"ז, then בי"ד would do the same for the יתומים‎. The fact, that the גמרא concludes that the מלוה does not swear for the יתומים תו"ז, proves that the father cannot demand such an oath either. SUMMARY The ruling of 'הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה' can be derived either from the משנה in כתובות where it states that the בע"ח needs to swear, or from the משנה in שבועות where it states that the יתומים of the מלוה need to swear in order to collect from the יתומים of the לוה‎. One cannot demand that the מלוה swear that שלא פרעתיך תו"ז. THINKING IT OVER תוספות maintains that we can derive that the לוה cannot make the מלוה swearשלא פרעתיך תו"ז, from the fact that the מלוה does not swear to the יתומים תו"ז. Seemingly there is a difference. By the יתומים there is only a טענת שמא, perhaps the loan was paid. Therefore the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז negates the שבועה‎. However by the לוה himself, since it is a טענת ברי perhaps he could require the מלוה to swear שלא פרעתיך תו"ז‎! Appendix It is not clear what is the connection between the end of תוספות concerning a בתו"ז שבועה with the beginning of תוספות concerning the source from where we derive the rule that 'הבא ליפרע וכו‎. Perhaps one can say (לחידודא עכ"פ) that תוספות anticipated and (partially) resolved the question addressed in ‘Thinking it over’. The second משנה that תוספות cited as a source for 'הבא ליפרע' is that היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה‎. The actual משנה states בשבועה אלא יפרעו לא היתומים; however the גמרא questions what it means. It cannot mean that the יתומים cannot collect from the לוה without a שבועה, for since the מלוה can collect without a שבועה, so too the יתומים should be able to collect without a שבועה‎. [Therefore it must mean that היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה‎.] However one may challenge the assumption of the גמרא, that the משנה cannot be discussing a case of הלוה היתומים מן‎. Perhaps there is a difference between הלוה מן המלוה where no שבועה is required and הלוה מן היתומים where a שבועה is required. When the מלוה claims that the לוה owes money it is a טענת ברי, therefore no שבועה is required. However when the יתומים want to collect from the לוה, there is no טענת ברי; it is possible that the לוה repaid the loan unbeknown to the יתומים‎. Why therefore does the גמרא assume that since the מלוה does not require a שבועה, the same applies for the יתומים‎?! From the fact that the גמרא does not make this difference, we see that גמרא maintains that the יתומים have the same טענת ברי as their father. The טענינן of בי"ד on behalf of the יתומים (that the loan is owed), has the same ודאות as the father’s claim. Therefore by the יתומים it is also considered a טענת ברי and no שבועה is required. The source of הבא ליפרע is based (according to this source) on the assumption that טענינן ליתומים is considered a טענת ברי‎. Similarly in our case if the father would be able to demand a שבועה תו"ז, this טענה would automatically be transferred to the יתומים as a טענת ודאי‎. This would seemingly answer the question posed in ‘Thinking it over’. However the question in ‘Thinking it over’ may still remain. We cannot compare the two cases. By הלוה מן (היתומים מן) היתומים the יתומים have a שטר that supports their claim, therefore that טענינן is considered a טענת ודאי‎. In our case however the יתומים have no support for the טענה of פרעתיך תו"ז; on the contrary the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז contradicts such a claim. Perhaps in such a case there is a difference between a טענת ברי and the טענינן of בי"ד which is not a טענת ברי‎. ודו"ק
מי אמרינן במקום חזקה מה לי לשקר או לא‎—Do we say in the face of a חזקה; ‘why would I lie’, or not. OVERVIEW The גמרא queries: in a case where there is a חזקה that contradicts a claim, and a מיגו that supports the claim, which is stronger; the מיגו that supports the claim or the חזקה that denies it. Specifically the case involves where the לוה claims פרעתיך תו"ז, however he could have claimed פרעתיך בזמני, is this מיגו strong enough to offset the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז. Our תוספות attempts to resolve this query, however these attempts (but one) are refuted. תוספות asks: הקשה הרב יצחק בר מרדכי והא הך חזקה עדיפא משטר‎ – The ם"ריב presented a difficulty with this query. For this חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז is stronger than a note; the חזקה enables the מלוה to collect better than a שטר can. תוספות explains how this is so – דבשטר אינו גובה אלא בשבועה ובהך חזקה גובה בלא שבועה – For if the מלוה possesses a שטר he cannot collect from the יתומים (or שלא בפניו) unless he takes an oath that the money is owed; however with this חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז, the מלוה collects from the יתומים without an oath; if their father died תו"ז, as the גמרא previously stated – ואם כן מאי קא מיבעיא ליה הא פשיטא דמיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן‎ – And since this is so (that this חזקה is stronger than a שטר), what is his query if a מיגו of מה לי לשקר is stronger than this חזקה‎? It certainly cannot be stronger than this חזקה‎. For this is obvious that we do not say that a מיגו can be believed in the face of witnesses who testify against the litigant who has the מיגו‎. We have just surmised that שטר is weaker than the חזקה, for with the שטר he cannot collect מיתמי without a שבועה‎. Therefore if we cannot say a מיגו במקום שטר, then – כל שכן במקום חזקה דעדיפא טפי – certainly we cannot believe a מגו when it defies this חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז which is more preferable than the שטר, for it enables one to collect from יתומים without a שבועה‎. To summarize: The חזקה is stronger than the שטר‎. The strength of the שטר is the עדים‎. We do not say מיגו במקום עדים (or במקום שטר); therefore we should certainly not say מיגו במקום חזקה which is stronger than the שטר‎. Why is the גמרא inquiring whether אמרינן מיגו במקום חזקה or not. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דלא קשה כלל דודאי עדים עדיפי מחזקה‎ – And the ר"י says that there is no difficulty at all, for it is certain that עדים are preferable to חזקה – דאי אמרי שפרעו אפילו בתוך הזמן פטור‎ – for if עדים testify that the לוה paid the מלוה even within the allotted time; before the due date, the לוה will be exempt from paying the loan, even though there is a חזקה that he did not pay, nevertheless the עדים that testify that he paid are stronger than the חזקה‎ – ואי אמרי אפילו אחר זמן ידענו שלא פרעו היה גובה מן היתומים בלא שבועה‎ – And if the עדים testify even after the time; we know that the לוה did not pay the מלוה, the מלוה would collect from the יתומים without a שבועה‎. תוספות continues: ומה שצריך שבועה ביש לו שטר זהו לפי שאינו מוכיח מתוך השטר אם פרע ואם לאו‎ – And the reason why the מלוה is required to swear when he attempts to collect from the יתומים when he has a שטר; that is because it is not totally evident from the שטר itself if the לוה paid or not. The עדים on the שטר testify that there was a loan. They do not testify whether it was paid or not. Therefore there are no עדים that testify that this loan is still owed. That is why a שבועה is required. The fact that the מלוה is holding the שטר is not conclusive evidence that the לוה still owes the money – דזימנין דזייר ליה אפשיטי דספרא כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יז, א.) – For occasionally the מלוה will retain the שטר even if it was paid up, on account of the coins that are due the scribe for writing up the שטר as the גמרא states in the first פרק of ב"מ. תוספות asks a different question: אך קשה דמכל מקום תפשוט דלא אמרינן מיגו במקום חזקה מדרמי בר חמא‎ – However, there is a difficulty, that notwithstanding what was previously said concerning עדים and a שטר the גמרא should resolve this query that we do not believe a מיגו against a חזקה; we can derive this from רב"ח – דאמר בפרק כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מה, ב ושם) המפקיד אצל חבירו בשטר‎ – Who ruled in פרק כל הנשבעין, one who deposits something by his friend with a note stating that he deposited a specific item; the דין is – צריך להחזיר לו (בשטר) – The נפקד is required to return the deposited item to its original owner in the presence of witnesses. If he has no witnesses that he returned the item; and the depositor shows the פקדון שטר, the recipient of the deposit – ולא מהימן לומר החזרתי לך במיגו דאי בעי אמר דנאנסו‎ – is not believed to say I returned the פקדון to you, even though he has a מיגו that he could have claimed they were accidentally lost or stolen, etc. Had he claimed נאנסו he would be פטור from paying, provided that he swears the שבועת השומרים‎. Nevertheless now that he claims החזרתי לך, he is not believed (even with a שבועה); rather he must pay for the פקדון‎. The reason the מיגו is not effective, is – משום דמצי אמר ליה שטרך בידי מאי בעי‎ – Because the depositor can say to the recipient; what is your שטר doing in my hand; if you had returned it to me I would have returned the שטר פקדון to you, so how come I still have the שטר‎. The fact that the שטר is in the possession of the בעל הפקדון proves that the שומר did not return the פקדון‎. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in שבועות‎. We see from that גמרא that a מיגו is not effective against the claim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי‎. This claim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי is conclusive evidence that the בעל השטר is owed (money). If the מיגו is not effective against the שטר‎ – וכל שכן דלא אמר מיגו במקום חזקה‎ – Then certainly a מיגו cannot be effective against the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז – דחזקה עדיפא דאין צריך שבועה וטעמא דשטרך בידי מאי בעי לא מהני לפוטרו משבועה‎ – For the חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז is more effective than a שטר; since with the חזקה, the מלוה is not required to swear to collect from the יתומים however the claim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי is not sufficient to exempt the מלוה from a שבועה if he wishes to collect from the יתומים‎. תוספות offers a possible response: ושמא סוגיא דהכא לא סברה כרמי בר חמא‎ – And perhaps the גמרא here that inquires whether אמרינן מיגו במקום חזקה or not, does not agree with רב"ח; it may maintain that a שטר מיגו במקום may be valid. If the שומר claims החזרתי במיגו דנאנסו he may be believed (with a שבועה). Therefore the גמרא inquires as to what the דין is by a מיגו במקום חזקה‎. תוספות will offer other places where there is a discussion concerning מיגו במקום חזקה; however they are not relevant to our discussion here: ולא דמי כלל לההוא דפרק האומר (דף סד, ב ושם) דאמר היכא דמוחזק לן דאית ליה אחים‎ – And our גמרא is not at all comparable to that גמרא in [מסכת קדושין] פרק האומר, where the גמרא states that in a case where it is known that a married person has brothers, however we are unaware that he has children; which would require his wife to receive either יבום or חליצה upon his death – ואמר יש לי בנים דנאמן במיגו דאי בעי פטר לה בגיטא‎ – And he claimed before he died that ‘I have children’. His wife will be פטור from יבום וחליצה if we accept his testimony. However this claim of exempting his wife from יבום goes contrary to the חזקה; until now it was presumed that he had brothers and was childless, which obligates her for יבום, nevertheless the דין is that the husband is believed; upon his death she is פטור מיבום וחליצה‎. The reason why he is believed against the חזקה that she requires יבום וחליצה is for he has a מיגו, that he could have exempted her from the יבום obligation by giving her a גט‎. That גמרא seems to maintain that a מיגו is effective against a חזקה‎. However תוספות does not explain how the two cases are different. וכן ההיא דהאשה שלום (יבמות דף קטו, א ושם) דבעי החזיקה היא מלחמה בעולם‎ – And similarly that גמרא in פרק האשה שלום where the גמרא queries: she established that there is a war elsewhere in the world; and she claimed that her husband died there. Is she permitted to remarry or not. The גמרא there explains the two sides of the query – מי אמר מיגו דאי בעי אמרה שלום בעולם‎ – Do we say that we should believe her that he died for she has a מיגו, for if she wanted to lie she could have said there is peace in that part of the world where my husband died. If she would have said that, since we are unaware of any war there, she would have been believed, therefore we should believe her now with this מיגו‎ – או דלמא כיון דהחזיקה היא ואמרה בדדמי לא אתי מה לי לשקר ומרע לחזקה‎ – Or perhaps we do not believe her, for once she established that there is war where she claims her husband died and we know that in the time of war she says he died even if in reality she only assumes that he died, therefore this מיגו cannot come and be effective and to weaken the חזקה that in the time of war a woman’s claim is merely a בדדמי‎ – an assumption not an actual testimony. ומייתי התם מעין ההיא בעיא לא דמי כלל להך דהכא‎ – And the גמרא there discusses a similar query as ours; this compels us to say that the query there it is not at all comparable to this query here. If they are similar why mention the query twice; in our גמרא and in יבמות‎. Again תוספות does not explain (here) why they are not similar. תוספות has a different question: ומיהו קשה מדתנן ביבמות בפרק בית שמאי (דף קיא, ב) – However there is a difficulty from what we learnt in a משנה in מסכת יבמות in פרק ב"ש – יבמה שאמרה תוך שלשים יום לא נבעלתי כופין אותו אחר שלשים מבקשים הימנו‎ – A sister-in-law, who went through the יבום process and was subsequently divorced within thirty days, if she claimed within the first thirty days after the יבום; there was no relationship with me, the יבם did not perform ביאה with me during our marriage and therefore I still require חליצה, since I am still זקוקה ליבום, so דין בית forces the יבם to give the יבמה חליצה‎. However if she complained to ד"בי, when she was divorced after thirty days have passed from the original יבום date, then בי"ד merely requests from him that he should give the חליצה, יבמה; however בי"ד does not coerce him. This is the משנה‎. ומפרש התם דעד שלשים יום מוקי איניש אנפשיה טפי לא מוקי‎ – And the גמרא explains there; why is there a difference whether the divorce took place within thirty days or after thirty days; for up to thirty days when a man is together with a woman a person can control himself, and withhold his temptation to have ביאה‎. However more than thirty days he cannot control himself, and by that time he will certainly have had ביאה with the יבמה‎. ולכך לאחר שלשים יום אין כופין דלא מהימנא‎ – And therefore after thirty days have passed since the יבום before she was divorced, and then she comes to complain we do not coerce him to give חליצה for it is assumed that he already had ביאה with his יבמה for the יבמה is not believed. It goes against the חזקה of טפי לא מוקי‎. A person cannot contain himself for more than thirty days. This ends the quote from the גמרא there. תוספות concludes his question; the woman is not believed חזקה במקום: אף על גב דאית לה מיגו דאי בעיא אמרה אינו יכול לבא עלי דנאמנת‎ – Even though she has a מיגו for if she wanted she could have said he is incapable of having ביאה with me; he is physically dysfunctional. If she would have made such a claim then she would have been believed – כדמוכח בסוף נדרים (דף צא, א) : As it is evident in the end of מסכת נדרים that a woman is believed to claim אינו יכול לבוא עלי‎. תוספות does not answer this question. SUMMARY The חזקה of א"א פורע תו"ז is stronger than שטר (because a שטר cannot prove conclusively that the loan was not paid); however it is not stronger than עדים‎. Our גמרא seemingly maintains that a מיגו may be valid against a שטר (in opposition to רב"ח) The איבעיא here is where the חזקה and טענה directly contradict each other; otherwise we may say מיגו במקום חזקה‎. By a יבמה we do not believe a מיגו against a חזקה, which seems to conflict with the query here. THINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות offers two proofs that עדים are stronger than חזקה‎. Why are both proofs required? 2. How does תוספות compare the פקדון שטר of רב"ח to a שטר מלוה of our גמרא‎? By a מלוה שטר a שבועה is required by יתומים since we are concerned that the מלוה retained the שטר because of the פשיטי דספרי (it is possible that a מיגו would be believed against a מלוה שטר); however by a שטר פקדון, the מפקיד pays for the שטר; there is no פשיטי דספרי, therefore the טענה of שטרך בידי מאי בעי is sufficiently strong to negate the מיגו‎?! 3. If we were to assume in our גמרא that we do say מיגו במקום חזקה, would that necessarily mean that מיגו is stronger than חזקה‎? How can this possibly answer תוספות last question from יבמה‎? 4. Differentiate between the various חזקות and מגו that תוספות discusses.
