1)

(a)The man who stipulated that if he failed to arrive within thirty days, the Get that he gave his wife was to come into effect arrived at the end of the thirty day period but was delayed due to difficulty in finding the river-crossing.

(b)Following the man's cries 'Chazu d'Asa'i, Chazu d'Asa'i' Shmuel ruled that, when all's said and done, he had not arrived.

(c)That ruling was based on the principle that 'Ein Ones b'Gitin' ('there is no such thing as an Ones by a condition on a Get').

(d)There is no absolute proof from here that 'Ein Ones b'Gitin' because even if we were to say 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin', that would only apply to an Ones that one could not have anticipated, whereas the Ones under discussion, could have been anticipated, and would have had to have been stipulated for the Get not to have taken effect.

2)

(a)The man who stipulated that if he did not appease his wife within thirty days, the Get that he had given her was to be valid did indeed attempt to pacify her, but she could not be pacified.

(b)According to the first Lashon, Rav Yosef ruled there that he could have pacified his wife by offering her three Kav of Dinarim (even though he did not possess so much money). According to the second Lashon, he ruled that seeing as the man had done all within his power to pacify her, he was an Ones, and the Get is not valid.

(c)The basis of the Machlokes between the two Leshonos is whether we hold 'Ein Ones b'Gitin' (the first Lashon) or 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin' (the second Lashon).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who lends money to a Kohen, a Levi or a poor man may stipulate that he will exact payment of his loan, exclusively from his own Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon or Ma'aser Ani respectively, selling the first of these to Kohanim, and eating the latter two himself, should he so wish (all the time assuming that they are still alive and that the poor man is still poor).

(b)After the death of the original debtors however, he may not continue to do this, without permission from the debtors' heirs because they are under no obligation to repay their father's debts.

(c)In the latter case, in the event that the original loan took place in front of Beis-Din then the original Din prevails ...

(d)... because Beis-Din place a debt of this nature on the entire tribe, in order to make it easier for them to obtain loans (similar to the Takanah of 'Ne'ilas Deles' that Chazal initiated in various areas of Halachah pertaining to loans).

4)

(a)Rav queries our Mishnah from the fact that the particular Kohen or Levi did not actually make a Kinyan on his creditor's Terumah, in which case it is not clear as to how the creditor is then able to take it in lieu of payment, since this appears to be stealing from the rest of the tribe.

(b)Rav answers 'be'Makirei Kehunah' meaning that the debtors are the regular recipients of the creditor's Terumos and Ma'asros. Consequently, other Kohanim and Leviyim will have despaired from receiving anything, and there is no question of theft.

(c)According to Shmuel, the Tana speaks when the creditor actually asks a third person to acquire the Terumah on behalf of the debtor, before selling or eating it. Ula then establishes the author of our Mishnah like Rebbi Yosi, who says that Chazal declared the Kohen and Levi in question Zocheh (like we explained above in the case where the loan took place in front of Beis-Din).

(d)The two disputants of Rav and Shmuel respectively, decline to learn like them because the Tana said nothing about 'Makirei Kehunah' or of 'making a 'Kinyan'. Rav and Shmuel decline to learn like Ula because Rebbi Yosi is an individual one.

5)

(a)The Beraisa further permits the creditor to fix the price of repayments (of the Terumah ... ) at the cheap market price in advance of its fixing, adding that it is not forbidden because of Ribis. The Chidush is that he is permitted do so even without specifically stipulating it.

(b)Even though the basic price has not yet been fixed, this is not Ribis seeing as, if the field would not produce anything (i.e. if it was to become swamped), he would receive nothing, now that it did not, it is not considered Ribis.

(c)Shevi'is does not negate the debt because, since he has no claim against the Kohen, the Levi or the Ani, it is not subject to "Lo Yigos" (seeing as he cannot claim anything from the Kohen ... ), and it is the Lav of "Lo Yigos" which Shevi'is negates.

6)

(a)The Beraisa also forbids the creditor to retract (and to claim the rest of his debt from the Kohen ... ) because the condition was that he receives payment from the Terumos ... , and has no right to claim from him personally, that would enable him to say that he has not yet acquired his due.

(b)Rav Papa permits the Kohen to retract ...

(c)... based a. on the fact that the Chachamim considered him to have acquired the Terumah (like Ula above).

(d)and b. on the Mishnah in Bava Metzia which permits the seller to retract, even after having received the money, as long as the purchaser has not received the fruit.

7)

(a)If the creditor verbally despairs of receiving payment for his loan, the Tana of the Beraisa prohibits him from claiming it. This speaks when the field initially became swamped that year, and the owner verbally despaired of receiving payment from it; and later, when the field dried and the crops began to grow, he changes his mind.

(b)The Chidush is that, seeing as the crops had already begun to grow when the field became waterlogged, their continued growth would have been anticipated, and consequently, the creditor's Yi'ush might not have been a proper Yi'ush. The Beraisa therefore informs us that it is (since Yi'ush is common, even in those circumstances).

8)

(a)Regarding the case in our Mishnah ('ha'Malveh Ma'os Es ha'Kohen ... '), Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, in another Beraisa, permits the creditor to continue taking Terumos or Ma'asros, even after the Kohen, the Levi or the poor man dies if the initial loan took place in Beis-Din.

(b)He permits him to continue taking ...

1. ... Terumos or Ma'asros due to the fact that all the members of their respective tribe are considered the debtor's next of kin.

2. ... Ma'aser Ani, even after the poor man dies to separate Ma'aser Ani on behalf of all the Aniyei Yisrael, even if the next of kin is actually rich a Takanas Chachamim to prevent the creditor from having to forfeit his loan, thereby ensuring that the poor will have no problem in finding creditors from whom to borrow money.

(c)Rebbi Achi permits it even if there are no Aniyei Yisrael in the entire town as long as there are poor Kusim.

(d)... since he considers the Kusim to have been Geyrei Emes (genuine proselytes); whereas Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov specifies 'Aniyei Yisrael', but not Kusim (whom he considers Gerei Arayos (who converted only out of fear of lions without accepting upon themselves the yoke of Mitzvos).

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that in a case where the poor man becomes wealthy, the creditor is no longer permitted to separate Ma'asros as repayment for his loan, which the debtor is now permitted to keep (since that was the condition of payment on which he received the loan).

(b)The Rabanan made a Takanah on behalf of the creditor in the case when the debtor died, but not when he became wealthy because the former is common, whereas the latter is not.

(c)The latter ruling is based on the principle that Chazal's Takanos do no not generally pertain to cases that are not common).

(d)The above distinction gave rise to the idiom 'When your friend dies, be confident that you stand to gain, but not when he becomes wealthy'.

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the debtor dies, the creditor may not continue to take the Ma'asros as payment of his loan without the heirs' express permission. Rebbi Yochanan explains Rebbi, who says in a Beraisa 'Yorshim she'Yarshu', to mean that it is only if their father left them Karka, that their permission will allow him to continue using his Ma'asros to claim his debt, but not if he left only Metaltelin (since children are only obligated to pay their father's debts when he leaves them Karka, but not when he leaves them only Metaltelin).

(b)Rebbi Yonasan permits the creditor to claim his loan up to the value of the Karka that the debtor left his children. According to Rebbi Yochanan even if he left them an area the size of a needle, the creditor may take Ma'asros that cover an area the size of a spade (i.e. up to the amount of the debt), because it is possible to claim this over and over again.

(c)We compare this to the case of 'Ketina d'Abaye' in Kesuvos where the creditor claimed his debt of a hundred Zuz from the field worth fifty Zuz that the deceased debtor left the Yesomim. Then, when the Yesomim, bought it back for fifty Zuz, he claimed it again, to cover the rest of the loan.

11)

(a)According to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa, if a Yisrael gives a Levi money against the Ma'aser that he separated from his crops, and says to the Levi 'Ma'aser Yesh Lecha b'Yadi v'Heilech Damav', we do not suspect that the Levi then declared it Terumas Ma'aser on other Ma'aser that he had received. The difference between this case and where the Yisrael said 'Kur Ma'aser Yesh Lecha b'Yadi, v'Heilech Damav', where we do is that in the former case, we know that the Levi cannot have declared it Terumas Ma'aser, because he does not know how much Ma'aser there is to make such a declaration.

(b)We object to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa on the grounds that it is not the way of Tana'im to speak about Resha'im (who take money and promptly declare the Ma'aser of the purchaser, Terumas Ma'aser). (See Tosfos DH 'ha'Meni'ach').

(c)Rav Mesharshiya Brei d'Rav Idi therefore amends Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa to when the creditor said (not that he had Ma'aser belonging to the seller, whom we then suspect of declaring it Terumas Ma'aser, but) that he had Ma'aser belonging to the seller's father, whom we suspect, might have declared it Terumas Ma'aser during his life-time.

(d)We refute Rav Mesharshiya's explanation on the grounds that we would not suspect a Chaver (the Tana is obviously not speaking about an Am ha'Aretz) of separating Terumas Ma'aser from what is not 'Mukaf' (all together in one location).

12)

(a)Rav Ashi finally explains the Beraisa when it is the purchaser who is telling the seller that he is buying from him Ma'aser which his father left him, and which we suspect he might have declared Terumas Ma'aser during his life-time.

(b)A Yisrael may separate Terumas Ma'aser, according to Aba Elazar ben Gamla, as we shall now see.

13)

(a)Aba Elazar ben Gamla extrapolates from the Pasuk in Korach "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem ka'Dagan min ha'Goren ... " that the Pasuk is referring to two Terumos because on the one hand, the Pasuk is talking to the Leviyim, in which case the first of the two phrases must be referring to Terumas Ma'aser, whereas "k'Dagan min ha'Goren" by definition, refers to Terumah Gedolah.

(b)We learn that Terumas Ma'aser can be separated by assessment (without the need to measure it accurately) from the Torah's comparison to Terumah Gedolah. We know that this is the case by Terumah Gedolah from the fact that, min ha'Torah, Terumah has no Shi'ur ('even one grain exempts the entire pile'). In that case, why should it be necessary to measure the excess that one gives.

(c)"v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" teaches us that both Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser can be separated in the mind alone (without verbalizing the separation 'Nosen Einav b'Tzad Zeh l'Shem Terumah, v'Ochel b'Tzad Zeh').

(d)Aba Elazar ben Gamla also learns from the comparison of Terumas Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah that just as the owner separates Terumah Gedolah, so too, is he permitted to separate Terumas Ma'aser.