Gittin, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 1
תְּנַן הָתָם: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה נִטְמָן יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא חָלוּט לוֹ. הִתְקִין הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא חוֹלֵשׁ אֶת מְעוֹתָיו לַלִּשְׁכָּה, וִיהֵא שׁוֹבֵר אֶת הַדֶּלֶת וְנִכְנָס. וְאֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַלָּה, יָבוֹא וְיִטּוֹל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו.
It was taught there [Mishnah Arakhin 9:4]: In earlier times, he [the buyer] would hide on the last day of the twelve months, so that [the house] might become his permanent [possession].
Hillel the Elder enacted that he [the seller] could deposit his money in the chamber and break down the door and enter, and that the other [the buyer], whenever he wanted, might come and take his money.
The mishnah cited here refers to the redemption of a house in a walled city. Leviticus 25:30 reads, “If it is not redeemed before a full year has elapsed, the house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages.” If the house is not redeemed from the purchaser within a year, the sale becomes finalized.
Before Hillel, the seller would have to find the purchaser to redeem his house. It seems that the seller would quite frequently wait until the last possible day to redeem the house—he after all wanted to hold on to the money for as long as possible. This led to the purchaser hiding from the seller so the latter couldn’t reclaim possession of his house. To fix this problem, and to allow the sellers, who were assumedly poor and in desperate need of money, to reclaim their homes, Hillel allowed them to deposit their money in the chamber of the treasury in the Temple. Then the seller could go back to his house, break down the door and enter legally. The purchaser could come and collect his money from the Temple whenever he wanted.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: מִתַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל הִלֵּל נִשְׁמַע – ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וְנָתְנָה לוֹ מִדַּעְתּוֹ, מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת; עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ, אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת – מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי נְתִינָה בְּעַל כּוּרְחֵיהּ – דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ נְתִינָה, מִכְּלָל דִּבְעָלְמָא, נְתִינָה בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ לָא הָוְיָא נְתִינָה.
And Rava said: From Hillel’s enactment we can learn [that if he said to her], “Behold this is your get on condition that you give me 200 zuz” and she gave it to him with his consent, she is divorced. Against his consent, she is not divorced. Since Hillel had to enact a way to give without the purchaser’s content such that it would count as “giving” we can conclude that in general giving to someone without their consent is not considered giving.
Rava uses Hillel’s enactment to draw a conclusion about the scenario in our mishnah from Gittin. Rava reads Hillel as making an enactment to allow a person to give something to someone else against their will. In the case in Gittin, the wife needs to give the husband 200 zuz to finalize the divorce. If she gives it to him, “against his will” then it does not count as “giving” and she is not divorced.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא כִּי אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְתַקּוֹנֵי – שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל בְּפָנָיו – בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא נְתִינָה!
Rav Papa and some say Rav Shimi bar Ashi, raised a difficulty: But perhaps he needed to make an enactment when he was not present. But if he was present, whether with his consent or against his consent it counts as giving.
Rav Papa points out that there is a difference between Hillel’s enactment and the case of the get. Hillel needed to make an enactment such that the seller could pay back the money even if the purchaser was not to be found. But if the purchaser could be found, we might not need Hillel’s enactment. The seller could just give the money back even without the purchaser’s consent. In turn, in the case of the get, she could give the husband the money against his will. All she has to do is make sure that she finds him.