Gittin, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 6

 

גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם וְיָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְקָאָמַר שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב קָנָה

 

Gem: R. Huna and R. Yitzhak bar Yosef were sitting in front of R. Yirmiyah, and R. Yirmiyah was sitting and fell asleep. And R. Huna was sitting and said: Learn from the rabbis that if a [third party] seizes property on behalf of a creditor, he has acquired the property.

 

R. Huna derives a general halakhah from the mishnah. According to the rabbis, if the master gives a document of manumission to an agent, the agent acquires it on behalf of the slave. The agent has acquired the slave (the property) from the master (the debtor) on behalf of the slave himself (the creditor).

 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין

אַדְּהָכִי אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אֲמַר לְהוּ דַּרְדְּקֵי הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא קָנָה וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר תְּנוּ כְּאוֹמֵר זְכוּ דָּמֵי

 

R. Yitzchak bar Yosef said: And even if the debtor also has debts to others? He said to him: Yes.

Meanwhile, R. Yirmiyah woke up. He said to them: Children, this is what R. Yohanan said: One who seizes for a creditor when he owes others has not acquired. And if you say our mishnah anyone who says, Give it is as if he has said, Acquire.

 

R. Huna clarifies that this is true even if the debtor has other debts. Let me set this up for you. Shimon owes Reuvn money. Shimon also owes money to other people. Levi comes and takes Shimon s money and gives it to Reuven. According to R. Huna this is a valid act, even though by doing so, Levi denies Shimon s other creditors.

Now R. Yirmiyah wakes up. He hears (somehow) what the rabbis were saying and disagrees (and calls them children). In such a case, Levi s seizure is invalid. Our mishnah is not a case of the agent seizing anything. When the master gave the agent the document, he said to him that he could acquire the slave s freedom on behalf of the slave. The agent didn t seize the slave the master gave the slave s freedom to him. Thus this mishnah is not a case of seizure at all.

 

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן דִּתְנַן מִי שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶת הַפֵּאָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי עָנִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר זָכָה לוֹ וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִתְּנֶנּוּ לְעָנִי הַנִּמְצָא רִאשׁוֹן

 

R. Hisda said: A [third party] who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a case where the debtor owes other, we have arrived at the dispute between R. Eliezer and the rabbis, as it was taught: One who collected peah and said, This is for so-and-so a poor man: Rabbi Eliezer says: he has thus acquired it for him. The sages say: he must give it to the first poor man he finds.

 

R. Hisda says that there is a tannaitic dispute over this subject. This is Mishnah Peah 4:9. A third party collects peah, the produce growing on the corners of a field, for a particular poor person. R. Eliezer says he has acquired it for that poor person, even though the owner of the field owes this peah to others as well. The sages say he has not acquired the peah for that poor person and he must give it to the first poor person he sees.

 

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם אֶלָּא דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ וּמִיגּוֹ דְּזָכֵי לֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ זָכֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ אֲבָל הָכָא לָא

 

Amemar and some say Rav Papa said: Perhaps this is not a good comparison. For R. Eliezer only said his rule in that case since he (the one collecting the peah) could declare all of his property ownerless and he could become poor and then the peah would be fit for him. And since he can acquire [the peah] for himself, he can acquire for another. But in this case no.

 

Amemar disagrees with the comparison made by R. Hisda. R. Eliezer said that the one collecting the peah has acquired it for the poor person because in theory this collector could make himself poor and thereby take the peah for himself. But in a regular scenario where a third party seizes property he cannot take the property for himself. Therefore, according to Amemar, R. Eliezer would not rule that he has acquired it.

 

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם אֶלָּא דִּכְתִיב לֹא תְלַקֵּט לְעָנִי לֹא תְלַקֵּט לוֹ לְעָנִי אֲבָל הָכָא לָא

 

And the rabbis only made their statement there where it is written, You shall not gather [for the poor shall you leave them] (Leviticus 23:22). Do not gather on behalf of the poor. But here, they would not say.

 

Amemar also debunks the comparison between the rabbis and the general issue of seizing property for a creditor. The rabbis might hold that in general such seizures are valid. But in the case of peah, there is a verse that specifically says that one should not gather peah on behalf of someone else (a midrashic reading of the verse). Thus in this particular case, seizing on behalf of another does not work. But it might work in other cases.

 

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַאי לֹא תְלַקֵּט מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַזְהִיר לְעָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ

 

And R. Eliezer, what does he do with the phrase, Do not gather ? It is necessary to warn the poor person about his own field.

 

R. Eliezer allows a person to gather peah on behalf of another poor person. So how does he read the phrase, Do not gather? He uses it to teach that a poor person who owns his own field cannot take the peah for himself. He must give it to someone else.