Gittin - Daf 50
- If the restriction to only collect זיבורית from orphans includes adult orphans
The Mishnah on Daf 48b taught that one may only collect from orphans’ זיבורית, regardless of the type of obligation. Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asked: יתומים שאמרו קטנים או אפילו גדולים – The “orphans” about whom they spoke, did they mean only minors, or even adults? He explains: תקנתא היא דעבוד רבנן גבי יתמי – Is this an enactment of the Rabbis for orphans to allow them to pay with זיבורית so the creditors, and not they, will bear the difficulty of selling the less desirable field? If so, the leniency only applies to minors, who are incapable of selling land themselves, but not to adults. Or perhaps the reason for collecting from orphans’ זיבורית is, that although a lender was generally enabled to collect from בינונית so he should not refrain from lending, this is unnecessary in the case of orphans, משום דלא מסיק אדעתא דמלוה – because it does not occur to the potential lender דמית לוה ונפלי נכסי קמי יתמי – that the borrower may die, and the property will fall to the orphans. Because he does not consider this possibility, he will lend money even if he would only collect from זיבורית. הלכך אפילו גדולים נמי – Therefore, even from adult orphans, one could only collect זיבורית. The Gemara concludes that the ruling applies equally to adult orphans.
- Collecting from gifted properties where unsold properties are available
The Mishnah on Daf 48b taught: אין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין – One cannot collect from properties which were sold to someone else where there are unsold properties available to collect, even where this forces him to receive lower-grade property than his entitlement. Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asked: במתנה היאך – What is the law regarding property that the debtor gave as a gift? Can a creditor collect from this (average) gifted property even where the debtor has unsold property (of a lower grade)? He explains: Was the enactment which required collecting from unsold properties made משום פסידא דלקוחות – because of the loss to purchasers, אבל מתנה דליכא פסידא דלקוחות לא – but in the case of a gift, where there is no “purchasers’ loss” because the gift recipient paid nothing, there is no enactment protecting his land from collection? Or perhaps we say, אי לאו דאית ליה הנאה מיניה – if [the debtor] had not received some benefit from [the gift recipient], לא יהיב ליה מתנה – he would not have given him a gift. והלכך כי פסידא דלקוחות דמי – Therefore, a gift is comparable to purchasers’ loss. The Gemara attempts to resolve the question from a Baraisa.
- Why a buyer’s produce is not collected from sold properties: שאין כתובין or שאין קצובין
The Mishnah on Daf 48b taught that although a buyer, whose purchased land was later discovered to have been stolen by the seller, may collect the purchase price from properties which the seller had subsequently sold, produce which grew in the field after the purchase can only be collected from the seller’s own property. Two explanations are given here. (1) Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish: לפי שאין כתובין – because they are not written in the original purchase contract. Purchasers can normally protect themselves from collection by leaving the seller with enough property for potential debts they are aware of, such as the purchase price publicized by a contract. Produce which grew subsequently, which was not recorded in the contract, is not known to buyers, and they cannot protect themselves. (2) Rebbe Chanina gave another reason: לפי שאין קצובין – because the amount of potential produce is not fixed. Purchasers cannot protect themselves from later collections if they have no way of knowing how much property to leave with the seller. Therefore, produce can only be collected from the seller himself. The Gemara discusses if Rebbe Chanina means to add to Reish Lakish’s requirement (of being written) or replace it.
