ד"סב
ה תוטיש יטוקל ,תוכלה
ןמ תורעהו ,םינושאר
"ךשנ והזיא" קרפ
טאלג אגרש לאקזחי ןסינ – ג"עשת רייאךשנ and תיבר are the same thing; קוספ split them only ןיואל ינשב וילע רובעל. (general) (4:1) (:ס)
It is also רוסא for the הול, and not just the הולמ, to be involved with תיבר. So too for anyone else who is involved between them, like an ברע or a רפוס or the םידע. (general) (4:2) (:הע)
הולמ is over on six transgressions; הול on two { ממ” - should be three. Leaves in ע"צ. מ”חל tries to cover by saying he’s going like ג"בשר in the שרדמ, that ךישת אל teaches about תמדקומ and תרחואמ; but rejects that- if so, ם”במר would hold it’s אתיירואד, and he doesn’t- see אי:ה}; the others, on only one. But whoever helps enable them to do the deal is also over on רוע ינפל. (general) (4:2) (:הע)
Even though the הולמ and הול {our ארמג said ברע. See מ”חל} were over on ןיואל, they don’t get תוקלמ,
since it is ןובשיהל ןתינ, since הצוצק תיבר is ןיניידב תאצוי. (general) (4:3) (.בס, :אס)
הצוצק תיבר is ןיניידב תאצוי; תיבר קבא is not. [Is there any sort of םימש ידיב obligation to still return the תיבר קבא? Based on a תקלחמ in ןנחוי בר’s opinion on :אס, the רן extrapolates (although the בשר” א”
argues with such an extrapolation, seemingly, since he says there is no מ"נ nowadays) to whether there is a םימש ידיב-type בויח: תופסות, במרן” , (א”בשר)- no בויח whatsoever; בירן” - yes, there is. The ש”אר
('ה ןמיס) implies like the opinion that there is a םימש ידיב obligation. (To me, it seemed as if the ארמג itself would make more sense if one said there is no םימש ידיב בויח, since it had sounded like ןנחוי בר was saying הצוצק תיבר is too bad to be fixed with just returning it; it really needs םימש ידיב התימ. Perhaps the א”בשר holds this way as well, and that’s why he felt that it wasn’t fair to compare ןנחוי בר’s ןיד by הצוצק תיבר, which was because הצוצק תיבר was too strong, to רזעלא בר’s ןיד by תיבר קבא, which is because תיבר קבא is too weak! And the רן would then hold of the ביר” ן” ’s הטיש, and therefore makes the extrapolation. וילע ןייע)]. However, תיבר קבא is not able to be עבתנ in ד"ב either— it’s only when the הולמ has already collected it that we say he can keep it. [What if the הול is ספות the money back? While the ד”באר hold the הסיפת works— the ש”אר ('ה ןמיס) argues, and says that the same ןנבר who were ןקתמ that תיבר קבא is not ןיניידב תאצוי also said that the הולמ gets to keep it still]. תיבר תמרעה is able to be עבתנ by the הולמ, though. [ש”אר quotes במרן” who argues, and says that this is also called תיבר קבא (i.e. no distinction in הכלה between תיבר קבא and תיבר תמרעה). The ש”אר ('ח ןמיס) says the ארמג implies like the במרם” — but in the end, seems to say like the במרן” : since this guy was over on the words of the ןנבר, they were סנוק him with being unable to collect it]. (general) (4:6, and see also 5:15) (:אס)
If the הולמ dies, you don’t take it from his םישרוי. However, if the תיבר was a םיוסמה רבד, and the הולמ had done הבושת before he died— he just didn’t get a chance to return the object— they are בייח to return it, out of דובכ for their father. (general) (4:3-4) (.בס)
There was a הנקת not to accept the payments of a תיברב הולמ and a ןלזג, in order to help encourage them to do הבושת {תופסות in ק"ב on :דצ had a הטיש that this was only for that generation. םש ןייע}. But if it’s a םיוסמה רבד {not טושפ you need this from the ארמג} and still ןיעב, then you can accept it. (general) (4:5) (ק"ב on :דצ)
A רטש which has תיבר written in it (either הצוצק תיבר or תיבר קבא): if before it’s collected, we let the הולמ collect only the ןרק; if after, then we are איצומ the הצוצק תיבר, but not the תיבר קבא. (general) (4:6) (.בע)
2
Whoever makes a רטש with תיבר is as if he had םידע come testify about him that he denies 'ה.
Furthermore, whoever does תיבר between him and his friend is as if he denied 'ה and םירצמ תאיצי. (how bad) (4:7) (:אס, .אע)
It is רוסא for a person to borrow money from his kids and the ותיב ינב with תיבר. Even though he isn’t דיפקמ and is just giving them a הנתמ, it is רוסא, because maybe he’ll accustom them to such behavior.
{The ארמג strongly implies that the רוסיא is to lend them with תיבר, not the reverse! שרי” there
explained it as a fear that they’ll now want to be on the other side of the deal with other people! מ”חל
tries to answer that maybe the ם”במר also meant to be הולמ, and when he said it was just as if you were giving them a present- that meant when you loaned it the first time, and didn’t really care if they paid you the תיבר}. (general) (4:8) (.הע)
It is רתומ for םימכח ידימלת to lend each other with תיבר, since it is clear that they were only giving a present, since they know just how terrible an רוסיא it is to do תיבר. {The ארמג just seemed to say since they know it is רוסא at all. מ"נ between the ם”במר and such a read: to the ם”במר, it would seem you’d need a real ח"ת; but to the simple read, one must only be a רבח who knows explicit םיקוספ. The ם”במר
is רבתסמ, though}. {מ”חל infers from the ם”במר’s wording that this is only רתומ when they don’t say at the time of the loan that it will be because of his money. But then what’s the difference between a ח"ת and an ץראה םע, since in 8:9 the ם”במר writes that it is רתומ to accept a little extra at the end of a deal when it wasn’t stated it was for the money? He answers that there it is different, since רכממו חקמ (as the ףסוי יקומנ explained when answering a different question there); but by האולה, they must be ח"ת. I thought there was another distinction: there, it was only when the money was given after the time of ןוערפ (see ממ” there); but maybe a ח"ת can give extra even during the time of payment}. (general) (4:9) (.הע)
One who borrows money, and finds extra amongst it: if the difference is beyond normal range of making a mistake, then it is assumed to be a הנתמ or a return of some past לזג; but if it is within normal range— by 1 or 2 or 5 or 10— then it is assumed to be a תועט and must be returned. {מ”חל says ם”במר is arguing on שרי” . ם”במר says his ןיד only by a single mistake; more than that, even if 1 or 2 or 5 or 10, is assumed to be yours}. [ש”אר (ב"י ןמיס) makes these numbers all אקווד ואל; it goes according to what the people of that time count like (see תופסות too, who distinguishes between the ארמג’s days and his own, where he says even 1 or 2 was normal to count by). The ם”במר likely meant this too, by adding on “1 or 2” to the ארמג’s numbers]. [The ש”אר (ב"י ןמיס) also says that this ןיד is only true when we can rely on our reasons for the הולמ adding in extra money; but if the הולמ comes to the הול and says “oops! I see I added extra money by accident into the loan,” we then assume it was a mistake, and his הנעט is a valid one]. (random) (4:10) (:גס)
If a loan is on a specific coin, and then תוריפ become cheaper, and the coin’s weight was added to: if their price went down because of the additional weight of the coin, then you must detract from its current value and return accordingly; if it is only because of other factors, then you still take the set amount of coins. However, if the change in weight is more than a 1/4th (ex: was 4 ounces, now is 5)— even though the change in the value of fruit was because of outside factors— you still must detract from its value the extra when the loan is returned. (random) (4:11) (ק"ב on :זצ)
If a loan is on a specific coin, and then it becomes לוספ: if the הולמ can bring it to some other place and use it there, then it can still be repaid with; if not, not, and a coin that is usable at that time is paid with.
(4:12) (random) (ק"ב on :זצ)
Some םינואג taught that the הול cannot be לחומ on the תיבר after he’s given it to the הולמ and he must accept it back, since all תיבר is with הליחמ— but the הרות wasn’t לחומ, and made it רוסא. The same is
3
true with ןנברד תיבר. The ם”במר argues though, and says that such a הליחמ does work, in the same way one can be לחומ a הליזג once it’s been done {this comparison to הליזג is significant}. Brings proof from the fact that we said (4:5) that there was a הנקת not to accept the תיבר from the הולמ, in order to encourage him to do הבושת, which implies that it is רתומ not to accept it— i.e. הליחמ works. The ד”באר argues, and says that if so, then תיבר יולמ would just do this all the time, in order to get their extra money. That simply cannot be, that we let them get away with this. Furthermore, the proof is not a good one, since we said that הנקת was to get them to do הבושת {and was thus necessary to have them stay in a state of sin until they did הבושת. Better not to scare them off. "ךתרות ורפה 'הל תושעל תע" style. If this is what the ד”באר means, then מ"נ between the ם”במר and ד”באר’s understanding of this הנקת: while במרם” would say that after they do הבושת, they still have no obligation whatsoever to return the money— it was already לחומ to them— the ד”באר would argue, and say that no, they still must, now that we don’t need to allow them to do רוסיא in order to be ברקמ them}. {The מ”חל deflects the ם”במר’s proof, and says that that הנקת could have worked even without הליחמ, because the ןנבר could just take the בוח and annul it (through רקפה ד"ב רקפה, I assume). I don’t think that’s a valid deflection though, for if that was what had happened, then why does it say "ונמיה החונ םימכח חור ןיא" if the הול accepts the money back; it’s not that they are merely unhappy with him, but he gets to keep the money— no! It’s simply not his money, since the ןנבר had destroyed the בוח he had on this הולמ, and then what right does he have to take this money?! The מ”חל would have to say that they were עיקפמ the בוח, except that if the הולמ still gives it, then we allow it, since the guy really deserved that money ןידה רקיעמ; but I think that is very קחוד, because why would they possibly make such an ineffective הנקת then— if they didn’t want people to do this, and were willing to be עיקפמ the בוח for it, then why still allow it to occur (as opposed to the ם”במר’s הליחמ understanding, where they simply told everyone to please be לחומ)?}. [ש”אר ('ב ןמיס) quotes both opinions; it sounds like he sides with the ם”במר, to me].
(general) (4:13)
We give םימותי יסכנ to a trustworthy man with many possessions, with him accepting תוירחא for the losses and the םימותי keeping the profits. [The ארמג had said אקווד objects which have no ןמיס. The
אר ”
ש ('נ ןמיס) asks how we could possibly give back an object with just a ןמיס— let him just say החוקל ידיב איה! And if you say it’s where he admits it was the guy’s with the ןמיס’s, then why does he need the ןמיס at all?! So the ש”אר explains: if it happens after the death of the לבקמ, the דיקפמ will bring םידע that he had deposited in their father’s hands a ילכ that had such and such ןמיס; and once he did that, we’ll be forced to show it to the םידע, and if they confirm, we’ll have to give it back, since it’s by his own םימותי, since only the קמלב himself can make the claim of ידיב איה החוקל. If so, asks the ש”אר, then why don’t we worry about a ןמיס of weight on the אכירפ אבהד? He answers that we only say non-קהבומ type םינמיס work by a האיצמ, since there the ןנבר were לקימ; not true by other things]. Even though normally
ספהל קוחרו רכשל בורק י
ד is רוסא— it’s only תיבר קבא, and by םימותי it’s רתומ, since they were never רזוג by םימותי. [Is this true by all types of ןנברד-level תיבר? According to his הסרג, the ם”במר’s own son made a קויד that the ם”במר held that specifically this type was permitted; but the ם”במר himself in a הבושת clearly implies that this is true for all types of ןנברד תיבר. The ש”אר ('נ ןמיס) says that the םינואג taught this was true for all types as well]. {The א”בטיר argues with all of this. He actually says that the ארמג implies that by םימותי, it is רתומ even אתיירואד to do תיבר with them, as a הולמ or as a הול. It’s inadvisable, because we are afraid to get them used to it, and that’s why ןמחנבר objected— but not even an ןנברד רוסיא. מ"נ if a הולמ were to do so, he wouldn’t be halachically defined as a עשר, and can still testify}. (general) (4:14) (.ע)
The ם”במר held that it is רתומ to lend and borrow money from a יוג or בשות רג, and a הוצמ to lend to a יוג with תיבר {but not to a בשות רג}. The בארד” argued— there is no הוצמ, just a רתיה—to lend to a יוג with תיבר. He assumes the ם”במר was העוט in the ירפס which calls it a השע תוצמ, but which the ד”באר
4
felt was only saying it’s a השע ללכמ אבה ואל, that you shouldn’t lend a Jew with תיבר. [What is the ןיד of a Jew who has left the pale (and has the status of a רקיעב רפוכ) with regards to תיבר? ש”אר (ב"נ ןמיס) explains that it is רתומ to lend to him with תיבר, since you have no בויח to be הייחמ him, as the ימלשורי implies. ( I don’t get it. Whether or not you have a בויח to be הייחמ a person isn’t the source of their רתיה to lend them with תיבר— we have a בויח to be הייחמ a בשות רג, yet it is permitted to lend him with תיבר! See שרי” on .אע, for example!) It is also רתומ for him to give you the תיבר, since it is רתומ for you to take it. But it is רוסא to take תיבר from him, because even though he has sinned, he is still a Jew, and is equally as בייח in being הייחמ you as you are to other good Jews. And by taking יברת from him, you are over on ךישת אל and רוע ינפל. (You see from here that when evaluating if there is an רוסיא of תיבר, the הול’s ןיד will follow after the הולמ’s: if there is an רוסיא for the הולמ, there will be an רוסיא for the הול; if not, not)]. (םיוג) (5:1) (:ע)
However, the ןנבר made it רוסא to lend to a יוג with הצוצק תיבר, unless it’s וייח ידכ, since we are afraid you’ll come to learn from his ways by spending so much time with him. A ח"ת is allowed to though, since we have no such fear by him. And that’s also why one is still allowed to borrow from a יוג with תיבר, since the opposite effect will occur— you’ll run away from him! Furthermore, only הצוצק תיבר was made ןנברד רוסא, but not תיבר קבא. {Why wouldn’t the same worry of too much association exist by תיבר קבא equally as much? חלמ” answers that since they only permitted it by תיבר קבא, he’ll have a constant reminder that such is the situation only because they don’t want him to learn from the יוג’s actions. Also suggests that since תיבר קבא is less of a lucrative profit situation, we needn’t worry about as much association; but feels this is קחוד}. [ש”אר (ב"נ ןמיס) permits all loans with תיבר to םיוג
nowadays, since we live amongst them anyhow, and are forced to do business with them— so allowing תיבר won’t add to the amount of association either way]. (םיוג) (5:2) (.אע)
If a Jew borrows 100 from a יוג with תיבר of 20% per month, and is on his way to pay back the יוג after one month, when another Jew comes to him and says “you give me that 120 for a month, and I’ll give you back what you’ll owe the יוג then (140),” this is הצוצק תיבר. Only if they were to go to the יוג, and the יוג actually takes the money from the first Jew— and thus, their relationship is over— and hands them over to the second Jew is this now allowed. (םיוג) (5:3) (:אע)
If a יוג borrows 100 from a Jew with תיבר of 20% per month, and is on his way to pay back the Jew after one month, when another Jew comes to the יוג and says “you give me that 120 for a month, and I’ll give you back what you’ll owe the first Jew then (140),” this is רתומ. But if they were to go to that first Jew, and even if the יוג is the one who gives the second Jew the money {as opposed to the previous case, where we needed the הולמ to actually give the money. Where’d the ם”במר get this from though, if he’s implying this? Can’t just be a ארמוח of the ןנבר, to say that the יוג is doing it תעד לע the first Jew, since the ם”במר says it’s הצוצק תיבר! ע"צו}— this is this now רוסא and הצוצק תיבר. (םיוג) (5:4) (:אע)
It is רוסא for a Jew to be הלות his money in the hands of a יוג in order to lend them to another Jew with תיבר { כמ - to deposit his money by the יוג, and then for a Jew to borrow it with תיבר; but גה” מ” quotes the אתפסות which says the reason is ןיע תיארמ, which must be some different case. See רן shortly…}. ”
{Unlike שרי” , who had explained "תולתל" as simply lying and claiming the money was a יוג’s when it was
actually yours. The רן reads the ארמג like שר” י” did, and derives “but if it were true, that they really
were the יוג’s money, then it’d be רתומ.” And even though we say later (on :אע) that a similar case would
be רוסא, since there’s no תוחילש for a יוג— there, the money had been borrowed by a Jew first, so it’s as if that Jew would be giving it to the second one; but when the יוג has always owned this money, like in our hypothetical case, then it’s רתומ (since even though the Jew is the one giving it to the second Jew, and there’s no תוחילש for a יוג, it still isn’t this first Jew’s money at all). The רן brings the אתפסות as ”
5
representative of the יוג somehow, so there is a לוק, and there won’t be an issue of ןיע תיערמ (see the above מ”גה; if the רן felt שר” י” agreed to this, and the מ”גה felt this is what the ם”במר meant, then no one has to be arguing. Except for the מ , of course, who is left out in the dark…). Furthermore, even ”כ
when there is a לוק, the Jew cannot have accepted תוירחא for the way; if he does, it’d be רוסא}. (םיוג) (5:5) (:אס)
It is רוסא for a Jew to be an ברע for another Jew’s borrowing from a יוג with תיבר, since their laws dictate that he will take from the ברע first, which in turn will make it that the ברע has lent with תיבר to the הול (since he will collect back everything he paid, including the תיבר, and the הול had only been given that amount without the תיבר initially). If they stipulate that the יוג will follow our laws, and thus collect from the הול before going to the ברע, then it is רתומ. [ש”אר (ג"נ ןמיס) says that nowadays, since the םיוג too only collect from the ברע if the הול defaults, then there is no need to stipulate this]. (םיוג) (5:5) (:אע)
If a יוג lent money to a Jew, and then the יוג converts: if before the conversion, the יוג extended the period of time of the loan— רתומ to collect the תיבר; if after the conversion, only the ןרק may be collected. However, if a Jew lent money to a יוג, and then the יוג converts— regardless of whether the extension was before or after the conversion— both the ןרק and the תיבר are collected, in order so that people should not say the יוג converted because he wanted to get out of paying the תיבר. [How can they be רקוע the אתיירואד ןיד just for this and allow תיבר? ש”אר (ח"נ ןמיס) simply says they can, without explaining how… Why?! The רן in םירדנ on :צ suggests possibilities which would seemingly allow a kind ” of “רקפה ד"ב רקפה/everything happens in תונוממ only according to the ןנבר’s תעד” type of answer to solve this; but that doesn’t seem to be what the ש”אר is saying.] {I’m confused overall as to what is going on here: what’s the deal with accruals here? Are we only discussing set amounts? At what stage in this process was the loan due? What is the ם”במר doing with the last line he throws in there…?}. (םיוג) (5:6) (.בע)
It is a הוצמ to prioritize the lending of a Jew for free before the lending of a יוג with תיבר. (םיוג) (5:7) (.בע)
It is רוסא for a person to give his money ספהל קוחרו רכשל בורקדי — it is תיבר קבא, and one who does so is called a עשר. If he gives, they should split it, both the רכש and the ספהדי , according to the laws of an קסע. One who gives the money רכשל קוחרו דיספהל בורק is called a דיסח. (קסע) (5:8) (.ע)
It is רוסא to give a worker an object to work with for half the profits unless he also gets paid for his effort and expenses. [When we say he gets paid for his expenses, what do we mean? Although it would come out according to שרי” that we our הנשמ is like ש"ר and we pasken like him, the ש”אר (ט"ל ןמיס) argues, and says our הנשמ is actually מ"ר, and that we pasken like him. לוטב לעופ here means we give him like a ירמגל לוטב לעופ; whether he otherwise would’ve been doing an expensive job or a less expensive job, it doesn’t matter— all he’s getting is like a ירמגל לוטב לעופ]. (קסע) (5:9) (.חס)
One must only write in the רטש that which it truly represents: it is רוסא to write a רטש on an קסע that includes his share in the קסע plus the expected profits—maybe such profit will not be earned; and it is also רוסא to write a רטש on an קסע as if it were a האולה— maybe the הולמ will die, and his sons will try to collect on it in full, without realizing that they truly deserve only less. (קסע) (5:10) (.חס)
[ש”אר (ג"כ ןמיס) quotes ריאמ וניבר that we can learn from here that it is רתומ for a הולמ to lend 100 to a הול, in order that the הול invest it and make it get to 200 (and the הול will then keep any extra profit), as long as: a) it is in the הולמ’s possession throughout, and b) the הולמ pays for the expenses incurred, so that it isn’t a case of תמדקומ תיבר {I don’t understand what he means by this at all… What does the idea of תמדקומ תיבר got to do with anything?}]. (קסע)
6
Either sending the הולמ extra money before or after the loan is סארו , and תיבר קבא— i.e. תמדקומ תיבר or תרחואמ תיבר. {מ”מ- from שרי” , it seems like this is only a problem when it is stated. In 8:9, he adds also that it is only an issue when within the time of the ןוערפ still}. (general) (5:11) (:הע)
It is even רוסא to simply greet the הולמ— and ש"כ to praise him—if you wouldn’t have normally done so otherwise. Even words are רוסא: the קוספ says רבד לכ ךשנ. {Is this הצוצק תיבר then, since the source is a קוספ?} It is even רוסא to teach him הרות if uncommonly done beforehand {and even though normally we consider the רכש of תוצמ as unquantifiable האנה— here, we include even things unquantifiable, since the קוספ said רבד לכ}. (general) (5:12) (:הע)
The הולמ should not tell the הול through implication that he should go and honor someone else. {How is this different from תיבר which isn’t from the הולמ to the הול— see below! I think that he’s intentionally not saying this is “רוסא” because of that; it really isn’t. In fact, in his תוינשמה שוריפ there, the ם”במר clearly says that this is not רוסא, but something “good to avoid.” The problem is, he says that about תיבר תמדקומ and תרחואמ as well…}. (general) (5:13) (:הע)
There are some things which are like תיבר, but are רתומ. A person is allowed to purchase a רטש of his friend’s for cheaper than the actual price. Also, a person is allowed to pay his friend some money in order so that his friend will lend some different person money, since תיבר is only רוסא when it is
between the הולמ and the הול [ש”אר (ז"מ ןמיס) says that this is אקווד when the one paying the money is doing it of his own volition, without being asked by his friend (the would-be הול). And certainly it wouldn’t be allowed if the הול were to pay back this friend! Additionally, the הול cannot tell the הולמ that his friend will pay the הולמ extra. In all these instances, the friend looks like he is the חילש of the הול, so still רוסא (the רן argued on the באר” ד” , who had brought a few similar cases as the ש”אר’s and said they were רוסא; he felt only in a case where the הול tells the friend he’ll repay him is he a חילש. But the ש”אר saying him just looking like a חילש is the problem would get around this idea)]. Similarly, a person is allowed to pay his friend some money, in order so that his friend will go and tell another person to lend this first person some money, since he is merely paying him הרימא רכש. [ש”אר (ז"מ ןמיס) clarifies that if the הול will be the friend’s ןטק son (i.e. ונחלוש לע ךמוס), then still רוסא, since otherwise everyone would just go and pull trickery by doing this]. (general) (5:14) (:טס)
There are some things which are technically רתומ, but are ןנברד רוסא because of תיבר תמרעה. A person cannot lend his objects to his friend, and then himself buy them back from the הול for a cheaper price than their true value. [ש”אר ('ח ןמיס) says that this case is only an issue at all when the הול had first requested money, and the הולמ said that he doesn’t have (the ם”במר also used this specific case). But to just םתס lend the הול objects, and then to do this whole situation, is completely רתומ]. {מ”מ points out that the ארמג there also said that if you had given him fruit according to קושבש רעש, and he would be giving you back fruit as the repayment, then this is certainly רתומ, even הליחתכל. Why doesn’t the
במר ”
ם mention this though?} However, if he is over and does so, then he has the power to be עבות the הול the full amount of the loan still (i.e. this is less than even תיבר קבא; see 4:6, and במרם” vs. במרן”
there). Similarly, if one has the field of his friend in his possession as a ןוכשמ, he cannot go and rent it out to the הול himself, since it looks as if the field owner is simply paying him monthly now for the loan he borrowed. (general) (5:15) (:בס)
It is רוסא to “rent out” coins, since this is incomparable to renting out objects, for those return ןיעב, and these do not; thus, to do so is תיבר קבא. {מ”מ- if you rent the coins out like an object, though— i.e. not האצוהל, but to be returned themselves ןיעב— then that is רתומ} [Although ש”אר (ו"מ ןמיס) quotes the
יר ”
7
asks on this, and says like מ”מ did]. {Leaves out wording of our ארמג about knowing their loss; see
תופסות}. (general) (5:16) (:טס)
If the king has a rule that if someone doesn’t pay their taxes, and someone else comes and pays those taxes, then the first person is דבעתשמ to the one who paid, and the one who paid is allowed to work him for more than the value of the money he had paid, and it isn’t a concern of תיבר. (random) (5:17) (:גע)
Any האולה with even a אוהש לכ of extra is הצוצק תיבר. [Seems to be unlike תופסות on .אס, who excludes less than a הטורפ הוש from the רוסיא of תיבר, due to a ללכו טרפו ללכ. Furthermore, the ם”במר never mentions that עקרק is excluded from תיבר either; more proof he doesn’t have any such ללכו טרפו ללכ.
אר ”
ש ('א ןמיס) also holds of the ללכו טרפו ללכ. Clarifies the עקרק exclusion case to be one where, for example, there are 10 attached fruits growing, and the הול returns it with 15. Also says ורטשת and םידבע aren’t excluded here, since תיבר is only ךייש to things which are able to be האצוהל; an דבע or רטש are irreplaceable— only called תוריכש. (Unclear what he holds by less than a הטורפ הוש). However, the רן ” in תובותכ on .ומ argues and says the ללכו טרפו ללכ also applies to these ones. It must be noted, still, that the רן on the יר” ף” there says these were made רוסא on a ןנברד level though. The א”בטיר, seemingly like the ם”במר, doesn’t hold of the ללכו טרפו ללכ; where’s the source?! The ש”אר addressed this, and said we find in many places a ללכו טרפו ללכ is left unmentioned in אתיירב, and we are שרוד with it in the ארמג {but here, we make no mention of it existing at all in the ארמג!}]. (general) (6:1) (:ס)
Whenever someone is not הנוק a field with a complete ןינק from the onset (for ex: אתכמסא), then he is not allowed to eat those תוריפ, and if he does— it’s ןיניידב תאצוי, since this is הצוצק תיבר. (general) (6:1) (:וס)
If the הולמ takes as a ןוכשמ:
A רצח (i.e. a place where there is guaranteed benefit)— without אתייכנ, it’s הצוצק תיבר; with אתייכנ, it’s תיבר קבא. {יקלסמד ארתא or יקלסמ אלד ארתא is irrelevant}.
A הדש (i.e. a place where there is not guaranteed benefit)— without אתייכנ, it’s תיבר קבא; with אתייכנ, it’s completely רתומ. {יקלסמד ארתא or יקלסמ אלד ארתא is irrelevant}.
Similarly to a רצח, if the הולמ rents out a house for cheaper than its real rent from the הול— it’s הצוצק תיבר (since guaranteed benefit).
The ד”באר argues. (Interesting to note, before seeing the below delineated םינושאר תוטיש in ה which types of ןוכשמ are רתומ or רוסא: the רן , in trying to cover for the people of his time, ”
moves away from what would’ve otherwise been his קספ and paskens הכלהל that any ןוכשמ with אתייכנ is רתומ!} {Basically, the מ”חל spells out 5 different (really 6) תוטיש in the םינושאר:
1) ם”במר- (see above)
2) י”שר- same as ם”במר, except: a) (בל ןב י”רהמ)- if יקלסמ אלד ארתא, then רתומ by a הדש, even without אתייכנ; and b) if ץצוק, then a הדש without אתייכנ is bumped up to being הצוצק תיבר.
3) ף”יר- No ןוכשמ is permitted, unless it’s a ארוסד אתנכשמ. (The only difference with or without אתייכנ makes is if it’ll be תיבר קבא or הצוצק תיבר). Makes no distinction between רצח or הדש.
3a. ח (same as יר”ר ף” , except that ח holds אתוציק— see ארמג on :זס— is ”ר
רתומ for non-ח"ת; ירף” felt everything’s רוסא for everyone, except אתנכשמ ארוסד).
8
4) ד”באר- same as ף”יר, except: a) if with אתייכנ and in an יקלסמ אלד ארתא, it’s רתומ. 5) א”בשר- if with אתייכנ, then רתומ; if without, then: if יקלסמד ארתא, then תיבר קבא; if
יקלסמ אלד ארתא, then הצוצק תיבר. Also makes no distinction between רצח or הדש.
(ןוכשמ) (6:1,7)
If one lends his friend money, it is רוסא to take the הול’s slave and make him work for you, even if he was sitting and doing nothing. It is even רוסא to live in the הול’s רצח for free— even if he wouldn’t have rented it out otherwise, and even if you wouldn’t have rented one otherwise {ם”במר doesn’t distinguish between if it were one and not the other, and if neither; unlike שרי” , according to the distinction made by ף”יש ם”רהמ. To שרי” , in this case of the ם”במר’s, it would seemingly be completely רתומ}— since it is תיבר קבא. Therefore, you must first stipulate רכש. If you don’t though, it was only תיבר קבא, and you didn’t stipulate to do this in the beginning {implying that had you stipulated it— even, again, if it was otherwise a situation of רסח אל הזו הנהנ הז— then it would still be הצוצק תיבר, and you’d have to pay in full afterwards}; therefore, if the הול has still not paid up the loan, and he wants us to deduct the would-be rent that you had accrued from his loan— if the would-would-be rent was as much as the בוח, then we don’t deduct the full amount from the loan and be קלסמ you with nothing, since that would look like we’re being איצומ the תיבר קבא with ןינייד; rather, the ם”במר writes that we have the judges calculate the deduction {seemingly, quantifying which part of the accrued rent was payment for the ןרק of the בוח, and which part was paying תיבר קבא}. The ד”באר argues on this: first clarifying what the ם”במר must have meant, and then rejecting it by siding with םירפא ’s (see below) understanding in ישא בר’s ןיד. ’ ר
{Not that the ם”במר had exactly agreed with what the ף”יר had said in that תקלחמ; he just agreed on
the fact that ישא בר’s ןיד doesn’t only apply to cases where there had been a “true הסיפת” on the land}.
[ש”אר (ז"י ןמיס) brings down a תקלחמ between the ף”יר and םירפא regarding ישא בר’s ןיד on :זס. The ’ ר יר
”
ף held that by a case where there had been no stipulation to allow the הולמ to live in the הול’s תיב— it just occurred after the deal, without the הול’s knowledge— then since that is only תיבר קבא, then בר ישא’s ןיד that we won’t deduct the rental fee accrued from the debt applies. However, םירפא argued, ’ ר
and felt that such is the case when the ןוכשמ was more fully in the הולמ’s possession, like when he has no right to be קלסמ the הולמ; but here, where it was done even without his permission— ישא בר’s rule doesn’t apply, and we will deduct the accrued rental fee from the הול’s בוח. םירפא brings a proof ’ ר
from the ימלשורי; and although the במרן” deflects the proof, the ש”אר (and רואמה לעב) sides with ר’
םירפא]. (ןוכשמ) (6:2, 7:1) (:דס)
[ש”אר (ז"י ןמיס) quotes the במרן” , who clarifies that the ף”יר’s הטיש (the other part of his above-stated הטיש regarding the ארמג on :דס) that when the הול told the הולמ to go live on the land, that it was תיבר הצוצק— that was only talking about a case where the תיב was standing to be rented (and thus, the הול was losing out on something); since if not, then even though there would be תיבר, there would be no ךשנ— and our ארמג had said (on :ס) that the two don’t exist independently of one another. Therefore, we won’t take it away from the הולמ, since “that which he doesn’t have (since this isn’t הרות-defined ךשנ/תיבר), we cannot remove.” And you can’t even say that by the הול ushering the הולמ into his תיב, that was as if he was making it rentable (i.e. he would be gaining through allowing this); since we don’t assume people are םיעשר, and would like to do something רוסא (i.e. תיבר) for no sake other than the רוסיא, so we assume he wasn’t giving this as יברת then (but rather some sort of extra gift. Wow. Basically, what we assume only by ח"ת in other cases, we assume by all people here. This is walking on thin ice, I feel— where does one draw the limit? Couldn’t one potentially purport that in all situations, we should say ןניקזחמ אל יעישרב ישניא יקוזחאד, and thus totally uproot the concept of תיבר? I guess here it’s slightly different, since we know that prior to this arrangement, this הול hadn’t considered this תיב as being of money-producing value; by other cases, such as a loan with extra money, we couldn’t really say that the extra money has no monetary value to the הול. But still…). The במרן” further states
9
that there isn’t even a םימש ידיב בויח to return the תיבר in such a case— again, nothing was taken.]
(ןוכשמ)
[ש”אר (ז"י ןמיס) is bothered from the ארמג on :דס. Since we see that one must be so careful about תיבר— to the point where it is רוסא to have a הולמ who wouldn’t have otherwise rented live in a תיב of a הול who wouldn’t have otherwise rented his house out— then even things that the הול would have done for the הולמ otherwise, even before the loan, should be made רוסא, even if they don’t cost the הול anything! (And if you say “yeah, נ"הא”— I take it the ש”אר isn’t just coming off of the illogic of such a situation, but the ארמג itself, which on :הע made it clear that such things are problematic only when if they otherwise wouldn’t be done before the האולה). So the ש”אר (see תופסות as well) supplies two answers: a) when we say these things here are רוסא, it only meant when they are public— but private dealings are רתומ; or b) our הנשמ here is dealing with two םתס people— but if they were known to be good friends who do each other favors all the time, then it is רתו . However, the מ ש”אר points out, to do so without the הול’s knowledge is still רוסא (even for two good friends), since it looks like the הולמ had only felt comfortable doing so because he was relying on his בוח]. (ןוכשמ)
The ם”במר writes that his teachers taught him that if a הולמ lends money to a הול, and then is עבות the הול when the time comes, and the הול tells the הולמ to then come and live in his רצח and deduct from the בוח accordingly— then this is only תיבר קבא, since they hadn’t been ץצוק at the time of the האולה, and the קוספ says ךשנב ול ןתת אל {the focus is on the act of the giving}. The ד”באר argues, and says that the extension of the loan counts as a new loan; thus, you were ץצוק at the time of the giving! Brings a proof from ןישודיק. {The ם”במר clearly holds of this idea; see above in 5:6. What’s his deal…?}. (general) (6:3)
When one is הולמ on a הדש and says to the הול “if you don’t pay me up within three years, then the field is mine”— this is הצוצק תיבר, since not הנוק (it was just an אתכמסא). (The ד”באר argues, and says the reason why we said יריפ ארדה אערא ארדה was because of the אתכמסא, the fruits taken were לזג. {How would the ד”באר read the ארמג’s point that “האולה אכה יניבז םתה,” then? Those are תיבר
buzzwords…}). But if the הול were to say “if I don’t pay up within three years, then the field is yours וישכעמ”— then if the הול pays up within three, the fruits are his; if he doesn’t, then all the fruits are the הולמ’s (we had set up a third party to hold onto them until we see what happens). [ש”אר (ט"כ ןמיס) explains why this works, even though just saying וישכעמ normally isn’t enough to get around the problem of אתכמסא: this case is unique, since the making this field into a ןוכשמ is kind of like a חקמ רכממו case, since the הול has actually been דעבתשמ the עקרק as a ןוכשמ; and furthermore— the הולמ had done the הול a favor— so altogether, this deal is closer to a real one than other cases. (As further proof, the ש”אר asks why ןמחנ בר needed ימוינמ to tell him that אתכמסא isn’t הנוק— we see elsewhere that ןמחנ בר himself already held of this ןיד! It must be that there is a difference between the אתכמסא here and other אתכמסא cases; ןמחנ בר had thought it was so different to make it be הנקנ even without saying וישכעמ; and ימוינמ taught him that no, it’s uniqueness does allow a ןינק here— but only once וישכעמ was said). ש”אר also brings down ת , who offers a different קוליח between this case and other ”ר אתכמסא cases: the הסיפת here is more effective, since the object being bought was actually in the hands of the הולמ/חקול person himself; unlike elsewhere, where it was in the hands of ד"ב or a third party. (See also רן in םירדנ on :זכ for more on when וישכעמ will help to make אתכמסא not a problem)]. ”
{Is there a reason why the ם”במר switched from the הולמ and the הול saying the stipulation, when the
real focus is on the wording, if it was with וישכעמ or not?! מ”חל- no, not really. Just quoting the ארמג, which itself had done this…} (ןוכשמ) (6:4) (:הס)
If a רכומ stipulated to a חקול that “you have to return the land to me when I get money”— this is an אתכמסא, and the תוריפ are הצוצק תיבר. But if the חקול just said it himself “when you have the money, I’ll
10
return the land to you”— it is a full sale, and the חקול eats the תוריפ, and when the רכומ gets the money he returns it then. [ש”אר (ו"כ ןמיס) clarifies what this יאנת really means: it is where the חקול had said “on my current תעד, if that changes at that later point, then I don’t have to return it;” however, if the
stipulation was “if I don’t want to return it then, I don’t have to,” then that isn’t called a יאנת (see ע”מס in ג"י ק"ס ,ז"ס ,ז"ר 'יס מ"וחע”וש)]. (ןוכשמ) (6:5) (:הס)
[ש”אר (ז"כ ןמיס) writes that we only say ילימ ימוטפ by the case where a רכומ sold עקרק without תוירחא to the חקול when it was said at the beginning of the ןינק, before it was completed (א”רג- if after that, then it’s never going to be binding)— since at that stage, the חקול had already been willing to make this deal without the תוירחא anyhow; but if said before the start of the ןינק, then it was a legitimate יאנת, and is fully binding (since the חקול agreed to it only because of this)]. (random) (.וס)
If a חקול only gives part of the money to the רכומ, and the רכומ says:
“Be הנוק opposite your money”— both can eat the תוריפ, each according to their share. “When you bring the rest of the money, be הנוק all of it וישכעמ”— neither can eat, we give the תוריפ over to a third party, and we have to wait and see what happens: if he brings the rest of the money, all the תוריפ go to the חקול; if not, all to the רכומ. (This case is called תיברב דחא דצ). “When you bring me the rest of the money, you’ll be הנוק it then”— the רכומ eats all the תוריפ, and if the חקול takes any, we are איצומ it, due to הצוצק תיבר.
“Be הנוק it וישכעמ, and the rest should be a בוח”— the חקול eats all the תוריפ, and if the רכומ takes any, we are איצומ it, due to הצוצק תיבר.
(ןוכשמ) (6:6) (:הס)
[ש”אר (ו"ל ןמיס) points out that when we say that when a הולמ takes a ןוכשמ, he becomes the closest neighbor for the ןיד of ארצמ רב— it is up to what the judges think. If the current ארצמ רב comes along and protests (although there are some who say his הנעט is always a good הנעט, the ש”אר argues and says), we have to evaluate: is this loan occurring only as sham, in order to get around the ןיד of ארצצ רב and sell this house or field to this הולמ? If yes, they stop it; if it’s felt to be a legitimate loan, they don’t].
(ןוכשמ)
If the ground that was a ןוכשמ in his hands belonged to םימותי, then we are קלסמ him without anything.
{Where did the ם”במר get this from? As the מ”מ points out, our ארמג says ישאבר was not קלחמ
between םימותי and other people! And the ם”במר is in the midst of paskening ישאבר’s understanding here, that this is תיבר קבא! מ”חל notes this as well, and says that even though there is a ארבס to say that the םימותי’s claim is always strengthened by the ןנבר— see 4:14, for example— ת"מ to be קלחמ here?! I assume that his הסרג must have just been reversed from ours, that ישאבר had אקווד not done the same thing with fields of םימותי and others}. But if he ate more than the רועיש of his בוח, then that we do not remove from him. {Which makes sense, that even if the ם”במר held that ישאבר had not worried about this תיבר קבא issue by being קלסמ this guy by םימותי without money, it’s a much bigger step to say that he would say that clear תיבר קבא money should be actually taken from the הולמ’s תושר!}. Also, unlike by non-םימותי cases like this one, we are בשחמ from רטש to רטש— i.e. we deduct the accrued rent from other debts this הולמ had on the םימותי, even though this land was not a ןוכשמ for those ones. (ןוכשמ) (7:1) (.זס)
11
If it is an יקלסמד ארתא— then the הול is able to, even without stating this explicitly. If an יקלסמ אלד ארתא— then he cannot, and again, no need to state this explicitly.
If ןכשממ it םתס {מ explains that the במר”כ ם” means this in a place where they have no set גהנמ}, then the הול cannot be קלסמ the הולמ within the first twelve months, but beyond that he can. {Unlike שרי” , who had explained this as being even in an יקלסמד ארתא. Clearly, שרי” felt that in an יקלסמד ארתא, if left unstated, then the ןיד is not that he can be קלסמ immediately (as the ם"מבר had likely held); rather, the next line in the ארמג was coming to teach us the רועיש}.
(ארתא cases) (7:2) (.חס)
In an יקלסמד ארתא, if the הולמ stipulates that the הול cannot be קלסמ him until the end of the time designated for the ןוכשמ, then the הול cannot. But in an יקלסמ אלד ארתא, if the הול stipulates that he can be קלסמ the הולמ whenever he might bring the money, then this יאנת is not valid until there was a ןינק. { שרי” and ם”במר both seem to require the ןינק even when stipulated at the time of the loan itself. But תופסות and the במרן” argue, and say that this is no different than any other יאנת at the time of the loan which always works; thus, they conclude the ןינק is needed only when the stipulation is done after the time of the loan. Presumably, שרי” and the ם”במר feel that there is just not enough תעד תרימג ever when the הולמ says this, until a ןינק. Why? Maybe because to give someone else a תוכז, instead of just being לחומ on one’s own, is a much bigger deal. See ןירדהנס on .דכ, for example}. (ארתא cases) (7:3) (:זס)
In an יקלסמד ארתא, the land does not count as owned by the הולמ (מ"נ for a ח"ב being ףרוט from it, for a רוכב’s םינש יפ, and for הטימש being טמשמ the loan); in a יקלסמ אלד ארתא, it does. (ארתא cases) (7:4) (:זס)
Despite this type of ןוכשמ (one on a הדש without אתייכנ) being רוסא due to תיבר קבא, the גהנמ may have developed as a mistake, or amongst the םיוג— or perhaps it was simply that whenever someone would be over and do it, this was how they would do it— since it is only תיבר קבא {and thus, we don’t simply end the deal right then and there, as we would for הצוצק תיבר?}, we go after the גהנמ. The
במר ”
ם also notes that there were some who taught that all these תוכלה only were dealing with a situation where it was a ןוכשמ with אתייכנ, and thus רתומ. {מ”מ says this latter ארבס is the רקיע; although I think it is clear that the ם”במר did not think so}. {Potential מ"נ between the two ארבסs: perhaps the second one thinks that any גהנמ which has no permissible founding in הכלה is ignored entirely; the first ארבס would obviously argue}. (ארתא cases) (7:5)
If a Jew is living on the land of a יוג as a ןוכשמ for a loan he had given the יוג, and then the יוג sells the land to a different Jew— the first Jew doesn’t need to pay the second Jew rent, and can live in the land for free until the יוג pays up his loan, since in the laws of the םיוג, it is in the possession of the הולמ until the הול can be קלסמ it {and the second Jew is no better than the יוג he bought it from}. (םיוג) (7:6) (:גע)
If a הולמ stipulates to a הול who is eating the fruits of his הדש or תיב {מ”מ explains this part is necessary, since otherwise, the ם”במר holds that there is no רתומ way to be כשממן houses, and the ם”במר took the אתיירב’s wording literally} that the הדש or תיב he is ןכשממ should be sold specifically to him— and for a cheaper price— if the הול decides to sell it, then this is רוסא. But if the הולמ stipulates that he will buy it for its appropriate value, then it is רתומ. The ד”באר asks why this isn’t all an אתכמסא case, since he isn’t sure that the הול will ever choose to sell it, and concludes that this must be a case where he said וישכעמ { ממ” points out that the ם”במר agrees to this, in ז:ח הריכמ 'לה}. [ש”אר (ה"כ ןמיס) gives the same answer to a reversed question: why isn’t this comparable to the case in our הנשמ on :הס, where we say it is רתומ? So you can answer that there we established it as being וישכעמ. And even if you don’t say that, it is still different: over there in that הנשמ, it depended entirely in the הול— had he wanted, he
12
could have sold it to someone else, and used that money to pay up the הולמ, so we can’t say it’s תיבר (it was just a free gift or something; he just decided to be nice and give it to this particular חקול/הול ); but מ here, if he had chosen to sell it, he would have to sell it to the הולמ, so it’s תיבר when he agrees to sell it for this cheaper price]. (ןוכשמ) (7:7) (:הס)
It is רתומ to make extra money on the תוריכש of עקרק, by offering a deal of “if you pay now, I’ll give you a cheaper price per month than if you were to pay later,” (since ףוסב אלא תמלתשמ תוריכש ןיא) [ש”אר (א"כ ןמיס) explains: since it hasn’t yet reached the time when he would collect, it cannot be said to be היל רטנ רגא]. (early bird special) (7:8) (.הס)
If one rented land for 100 per month for 10 months, and then asks to borrow 200 more for things which will improve the field’s producing quality itself, and he will then pay back 150 per month for the 10 months [What about the actual 200 of the loan itself? If he pays that back, plus a higher quality rented object, then won’t that be תיבר? ש”אר (ח"מ ןמיס) says outright he’s still returning the 200, and still not an issue (doesn’t explain why). The בי quotes the תומורתה לעב who says שר” י” had held yes, he must still pay up the 200; but that "השמ 'ר" argued and said he didn’t. However, the בי himself thinks you ” cannot derive anything from this ם”במר, since he only quoted the exact ןושל of the ארמג; therefore, he concludes that the תומורתה לעב must’ve been referring to the במרן” . Nonetheless, I feel that he likely was referring to the ם”במר, because had the ם”במר held that the 200 was also to be paid back, then he would have been more explicit about that than the ארמג, which really makes no mention of what happens to that money at all. Also, I have my above question…], it is רתומ (since as if you rented a higher quality item in the first place, with a better ability to produce). Same thing with a boat, or a store. However, the same idea that the loan money must be used for the actual improvement of the rented item remains true; otherwise, it is רוסא. (random) (7:9) (:טס)
It is רוסא to make a deal that if your friend does work for you worth one amount now, you’ll do work worth double that for him next week. Furthermore, it is רוסא to do a different work back for him {even if it would be objectively considered at the same value}. Also, even within the same work, it is רוסא if the work will be in a different time period {again, even if the price of hire might not be higher, the work may be harder}. Only for the same price for the same work during the same time period is רתומ. {The מ”מ points out though, that to hire a worker in the same manner as a field— i.e. the early-bird special move— is also רתומ (since the same idea of ףוסב אלא תמלתשמ תוריכש ןיא would apply), despite the
במר ”
ם saying that it is רוסא to gain through the תוריכש of a person}. (random) (7:10,11) (.הע)
If one hires a worker during a time of year when the rate is higher, but he hires him for a lower rate to do work for him at the time of the lower rate and gives him the money now—it’s רוסא, since it looks like you were being הולמ him the money now in order that he’ll do work later at a cheap price. But if you stipulate that cheaper rate right now, and pay him, and he begins the work right now— it’s not an issue, since because he is working by you right now, it doesn’t look like he was doing it because of your early money {but rather, because he was just hiring himself out for a cheaper rate}. (random) (7:12) (ב"ב on :ופ)
It is רוסא to make extra money on a sale, by offering a deal of “if you pay now, I’ll give you a cheaper price than if you were to pay later.” {And there is no set price, I think. The רעש has not been set yet; the significant point in this case is that you were explicit in stating the deal}. It’s תיבר קבא, since the same as taking 20 in order to let someone use 100 until a certain point. {What does this לשמ add…?}. Thus, when the רכומ comes to collect his money, the חקול has the right to say “either take the lower amount, or take back the sold item.” {But if he had already paid the higher price, he cannot be עבות the extra money back, since only תיבר קבא}. Similarly, if one sells his ןילטלטמ for a higher price to be paid until a certain point in time, instead of the regular lower price that people can pay to buy it now in the קוש, it is also
13
רוסא {in this case, even though you haven’t explicitly stated the deal, you have still gone against the רעש}. {The way I’ve explained it makes the במרם” like the א”בשר quoted by the מ”מ. However, the
מ ”
מ himself said that the ם”במר is arguing with the א”בשר. I don’t see how; it seems to me that the
במר ”
ם must be read this way, specifically when considering the very next הכלה…} (early bird special) (8:1) (.הס)
However, if the רכומ were to offer the object for a cheaper price than the רעש if the חקול pays right now, or else the higher and regular רעש price if he pays at a later date, then this is רתומ {even if he explicitly offers the deal}. (early bird special) (8:2) (ד:ו אתפסות)
[ש”אר (ב"כ ןמיס) explains the case of אשרט of ןמחנ בר being like what שרי” said, that you may sell objects for more than their price and wait longer for the money, as long as you don’t explicitly state “if you’d pay now, it would be for the cheaper, regular price.” How does this fit with ןמחנ בר’s own הטיש earlier (on :גס) that it is רוסא to sell things for a cheaper price than they are really worth if the חקול advances the money now? The ש”אר answers that the only reason ןמחנ בר allows אשרט is when the רעש is unknown; however, when it is known, like on :גס, he says it is רוסא, because then it is as if you had been שרפמ]. (early bird special)
[ש”אר (ב"כ ןמיס) quotes the ף”יר who paskened that the אשרט of ןמחנ בר was רוסא (since when the ארמג paskened against the allowance of אפפ בר, it’d be a ש"כ that it was paskening against ןמחנ בר’s ןיד too); however, ת paskened it was רתומ (and the ארמג paskened against אפפ בר’s אשרט only in ”ר regards to אמח בר’s, which it permits— both those types are even when the deal was explicitly stated. But that isn’t true by ןמחנ בר’s אשרט, where the whole point was that it wasn’t stated. So the ארמג just wasn’t talking about such a case). ש”אר seems to side with ת ]. ”ר (early bird special)
If a רכומ sells a barrel of wine to a חקול for double its value to be paid until a certain amount of time, on the condition that if something happens to the wine during that period of time, it will be in the רכומ’s תושר, until the חקול himself goes and sells it— this is רתומ, since if it’s destroyed, the רכומ will cover the loss, and if the חקול doesn’t sell it, he can always return it {seems very similar to 9:9}. Similarly, it is also רתומ to sell the wine for double, if the רכומ tells the חקול that any extra profits the חקול makes in a resale of the object will go to the חקול as רכש for his efforts, and if at any point he wants to return the item he can— then this too is allowed, even though if it were to break, it would be in the חקול’s תושר.
(random) (8:3) (unclear; מ”מ says maybe this is אמחברד אשרט on .הס {If it is, it’s different than שרי” /ש”אר— see ב"כ ןמיס})
If one could sell his item in the קוש for one price if he were to be given the money immediately, and if the חקול were to demand the item right then— it would cost extra, then one is allowed to sell the items for that higher price, and give the חקול the items right then, and allow the חקול to pay him the money over a longer period of time; for the extension of time here cannot be said to be the cause for the extra money— that was the giving of the items right away. {Basically, there is a concept of having two prices for an object, depending on when the חקול will actually receive it (why that itself isn’t תיבר from the
רכומ to the חקול, is unclear to me…). Therefore, as long as the extended time in the חקול handing over
the money isn’t the reason for the increased price, not an issue of יברת }. (early bird special) (8:4)
It is רוסא to buy תוריפ of a vineyard before they have finished developing for the cheaper price of unripe fruit {and they will stay by the רכומ until they are ripened}, because it will be worth more than that when it finishes developing, and thus, the only reason the חקול is receiving a better deal is because of the early payment. But to purchase a calf for the cheaper price, and then it will be raised by the רכומ, is רתומ, since it is a more likely thing that the calf will get sick or die, and it is in the חקול’s תושר in regards to such losses. The ד”באר argues on this explanation of the ארמג { שרי” did too; explained it as saying
14
that it is רוסא by a vineyard—seemingly because the loss he’s accepting isn’t likely or large enough— but if it is a vineyard that is plowed with oxen, which will do much damage to the field, than it is a significant enough acceptance of losses. Same idea in principle as the ם”במר, just different measuring tools}, but doesn’t explain why. {מ”מ suggests the ד”באר’s objection is that if the ם”במר’s explanation is correct, then the ארמג should’ve said “animals” and not “oxen,” which sounds specific; but the מ”מ defends the
במר ”
ם , and says the ארמג was just doing it for an added שודיח, that it’s רתומ even by a calf, even though the amount of profit from a calf to an ox is very large}. (early bird special) (8:5) (.גע)
In order to buy twigs and vines from a vineyard {seems אקווד, when contrasting it to תוריפ above; but what would be a ארבס for that? So I guess he’s just using the ןושל of the ארמג…} before they are cut, for a cheaper price than had they been cut already, it is necessary to work in the field a little bit, since it will look like you were הנוק the tree for its vines {Once he’s saying it this way, why not simply say that it’s רתומ since it now looks like you are getting paid for your work with cheaper prices? Maybe since if that were true, then the ם”במר wouldn’t have any שודיח for the next case of the ארמג, brought in the next הכלה}. If you don’t, it’s רוסא. { שרי” explained this case differently; he said that it’s with םיסירא, and the חקול needing to work the ground so that he too will own a share in the produce}. (early bird special) (8:6) (.גע)
Those that guard fields, who are offered cheaper prices for wheat if they wait to receive their payment, must do some small labor continuously for the field owner until the wheat is paid, in order so that the cheaper price will be part of a payment which had not yet finished being incurred. If they don’t, it’s רוסא, since the delayed רכש was a loan to the field owner, and they were only able to buy the wheat cheap because of their loan. {Why is this רוסא; yet the two prices for taking an object ahead of time is רתומ— see 8:4!} { שרי” explains this case slightly differently, but I see no מ"נ}. (early bird special) (8:7) (.גע)
To kick off םיסירא from the land at a later point, and to allow them to get more fruit for that time, is רתומ. (random) (8:8) (.גע)
If someone is קסופ on תוריפ according to the רעש, and then when the חקול comes to get the fruits, the רכומ adds on some extra— this is רתומ, since there was no יאנת { ממ” clarifies that there is no ששח of תרחואמ תיבר when there was no יאנת, as long as the extra was given after the time of ןוערפ— see also 5:11}. {Also, I think one could’ve distinguished between רכממו חקמ ךרד and האולה ךרד}. (being קסופ) (8:9) (:גע)
It is רתומ to give money for wine, and to have the רכומ accept the losses if the wine goes bad, as long as the חקול still accepts the אלוזו ארקוי, since he has accepted דיספהו רכשל בורק. (random) (8:10) (:דס)
It is רתומ to give money in order buy wine at the proper price, and to take it only later, and to sift out the vinegar amongst it and take his full amount of wine, since the חקול was only buying good wine at the onset anyhow, and this stuff already had its לוקליק within it. (random) (8:10) (:גע)
In a place where they have the גהנמ that the person renting an object must, besides for the rent, pay also the replacement value if it gets destroyed, it is רתומ to do so, since he only owed the money after the object was destroyed— so the רכש was רכש, and he only “acquired” the object afterwards (this is referred to as ארגפו ארגא). (ארגפו ארגא) (8:11) (:טס)
It is רוסא to accept לזרב ןאצ from a Jew, since it is תיבר קבא, for it is דיספהל קוחרו רכשל בורק. Therefore, for it to be רתומ, the depositor must accept the אלוזו ארקוי and the losses if destroyed {I think the
במר ”
ם means both of these, and not just either/or. But we said in 8:10 by wine that as long as he accepts the loss, he mustn’t also accept the אלוזו ארקוי! So either the ם”במר means either/or here too;
15
or else (as I believe) he distinguishes between wine and other things, since wine’s destruction is relatively likely and therefore enough of an acceptance of דספה to make it not a קוחרו רכשל בורק דיספהל type of deal; not so by other things; or else, there it was more of a רכממו חקמ situation. Maybe.}
(random) (8:12) (:ע)
If an object is given with a ןושל of תוריכש, then some of the profits it makes can be returned with it as payment for that rental fee, and no issue of תיבר. (קסע) (8:14) (:חס)
If the הול of a loan with 4 of הצוצק תיבר pays up the תיבר with a single object worth 5, then when we are איצומ from him, we are איצומ all 5 {in value}, since it all came into his hands תיבר תרותב. If the object was an object that is םיוסמ though, then we take that specific object back {and obviously, if destroyed, then he’d owe the value. The point is just that if it’s ןיעב, we take it specifically back, unlike in the previous case}. {Our ארמג’s תוטשפ reads a bit differently though; it would seem to have the two cases be one where it was a few small objects, and the other a single larger object, and that’s the ארמג’s שודיח. No clear distinction between םיוסמ or not (although, likely, the במרם” is coming off the ארמג’s giving of a different reason by the second case than the first)}. [ש”אר (ט"י ןמיס) quotes ןואג יאה בר who derives from the way the ארמג gives a different ארבס by a םיוסמ רבד (that it is an issue of people saying he’s wearing something of תיבר) that if one does a sale רוסיאב, the sale is still a good sale, and the חקול isn’t able to be לטבמ the ןינק just because it was done רוסיאב]. (general) (8:15) (.הס)
If a הולמ with הצוצק תיבר agrees to accept free rent of living in a place less expensive than his בוח of תיבר for the full amount of the בוח anyways, then when we are איצומ from him, we are איצומ the full הצוצק תיבר amount, since it was as if he had just agreed to pay a bad price for this living rent. (general) (8:15) (.הס)
It is רוסא to be קסופ on objects when the רכומ doesn’t have any, if at the time of the deal there isn’t yet a רעש. If there is a רעש, or if the רכומ has even a bit of the objects {תופסות would need a הטורפ הוש’s worth, since they hold of the ללכו טרפו ללכ mentioned by 6:1}, then there is no issue. [What if the תוריפ go up in price— must the רכומ give back the תוריפ, or is he allowed to even give back the money
according to the fruits current, higher, value? The ש”אר ('ז ןמיס) brings a םינושאר תקלחמ (it’s also in
תופסות) over this point: ת says it is רתומ to even take it, the loan plus the extra value, back in money; ”ר
but ם”בשר argues, and says תועמ are not allowed. However, the ם”בשר does permit transferring the value onto other fruits, and taking those back instead (argues on שרי” , maybe? See by 10:6 below! But I assume not; there it was a האולה, here only רכממו חקמ ךרד). The ש”אר himself agrees with ם”בשר; if the ארמג had held that יאניבר had also permitted the transference to money, then why would it assume בר would argue by onto other תוריפ as well? Therefore, it’s likely יאני בר also agreed on to תועמ is רוסא; thus, the ארמג’s argument between בר and יאני בר was only over whether it is permitted to transfer the value onto other fruits (and the ארמג itself, on :הס, had paskened like יאני בר), as the ם”בשר had said]. Even if the object has not been fully completed yet— if it is close enough to completion— counts as if it is ול שי. (being קסופ) (9:1) (:בע)
[Since we said the reason being קסופ on תוריפ even though ול ןיא is רתומ was because there was no
benefit to the חקול, the ש”אר ('ט ןמיס) deduces that this is always true— there can be no benefit whatsoever— and therefore, the רכומ also gets to detract the תונורסח if there would have been those תוריפ in the רכומ’s house all along, from the time of the deal until the time of the handing over of the fruit. See 10:1 though… (“And what,” by the way? The רכומ gets to keep this extra stuff for free— stuff he purchased using the חקול’s money? How was he הנוק it from him? Why should he deserve it, when he wouldn’t have had it without this deal either?! The ש”אר did say “would have,” so you can’t even answer that he means only in a situation where there actually are תונורסח, you deduct for them…]. (being קסופ)
