Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Admon, if Reuven produces a Sh'tar Chov on Shimon and Shimon produces a Sh'tar, dated later, which states that Reuven sold him a field, Shimon can say to Reuven 'You should not have sold me your field before claiming your debt'. Consequently, we consider the Sh'tar Chov a fake.

(b) The Chachamim say - that Reuven acted cleverly by selling him a field which he can now claim as collateral.

(c) Even the Chachamim agree with Admon in a case where it is customary to pay for a field before writing the Sht'ar - because then, the seller should simply have held on to the payment for the field as payment of the loan.

(d) So they must argue in a place where it is customary to write the Sh'tar first and to pay later - Admon holds that Reuven should have made a Moda'ah in front of witnesses (that he is only selling the field for the collateral; whereas the Chachamim hold that people tend to talk ... and it will soon reach the ears of Shimon, as we explained above.

(a) According to Admon, if two people produce a Sh'tar Chov on one another, the one can say to the other, 'If I owed you money, how could you then borrow money from me?' - in other words, the first Sh'tar must be a fake.

(b) The Chachamim say that each one may claim his debt.

(a) Rav Nachman holds that if two people claim the same sum of money from one another, each one may claim. Rav Sheishes says - 'Hafuchei Matrasa Lamah Li' (Why bother?)

(b) Rav Nachman agrees with Rav Sheishes - in a case where both of them own the same quality fields 'Idis, Beinonis or Ziburis' (good quality, medium or inferior quality respectively), because then one will claim the field, and the other one will claim it back.

(c) So we try to establish the Machlokes when one of them has Beinonis , and the other one Ziburis. Given that creditor normally claims Beinonis - the basis of their Machlokes is whether one reckons the Beinonis of the debtor (whatever is *his* Beinonis [Rav Nachman]) or whether one reckons the Beinonis of the world at large, irrespective of what the debtor has (Rav Sheishes).

(d) Rav Sheishes holds that the Ba'al Ziburis will claim his debtor's Beinonis, who will then claim it back - whereas according to Rav Nachman, after the Ba'al Ziburis has claimed his debtor's Beinonis, the second creditor will only be able to claim Ziburis, since that is the Din when the debtor has Beinonis and Ziburis (seeing as his Beinonis is really his Idis).

(a) We query the above explanation however, because it assumes that the owner of the Ziburis claimed first. If the owner of the Beinonis claimed first, according to Rav Nachman - then he would claim the other man's Ziburis, who would claim it back (Hafuchei Matrasa Lamah Li). According to Rav Sheishes too, there would seemingly be a problem, because the first man would claim Ziburis, whereas the second one would claim Beinonis - though for some reason, the Gemara only asks on Rav Nachman).

(b) So we establish their Machlokes when they both claimed at the same time (in which case either could staked his claim first) and it speaks when the one had Idis and Beinonis, and the other one, Ziburis, and they argue over the same point as in the previous answer. According to Rav Nachman, is it not Hafuchei Matrasa - because if the former one claimed the Ziburis first, then the second one will claim Beinonis; whereas if the latter one claimed first, he will now have Ziburis and Beinonis, and his creditor will only be able to claim from him Ziburis.

(c) To reconcile Rav Sheishes opinion with the Chachamim in our Mishnah ('Zeh Govah ... ve'Zeh Govah ... ') Rav Nachman establishes the Mishnah when one of the debts was for ten years, and the other one for five.

(d) It must have been the *first* loan that was for five years and the second one that was for ten (and not vice-versa) - because if the first debt was not due to be paid for another five years, how could the first debtor say to the second one 'If I owed you money how could you then borrow money from me'?, according to Admon.

(a) In any event, there is a problem whether the five-year time period has expired or not. The problem according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan, if the five-year time period has expired, is - how can they argue with Admon, since he is obviously right ?
2. ... Admon if it has not, is - how can he argue with the Rabbanan?

(b) So we establish their Machlokes on the last day of the five-year period. The basis of their Machlokes then is - whether a person tends to take out a loan for one day or not: Admon holds that he does not; the Chachamim holds that he does.

(c) Rami bar Chama reconciles Rav Sheishes with our Mishnah by establishing the Mishnah when one of the two claimants is a Yasom. Now a Yasom may claim Metaltelin from the debtor, but one cannot claim from the Metaltelin of Yesomim. Consequently, 'Zeh Govah, ve Zeh Govah' really mean 'Zeh Govah ve'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'. Rava asks from the Lashon of the Mishnah, which says 've'Zeh Govah' and not 've'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'. He alsos asks - why can one not give the Yesomim *land* and then claim it back from them?

(d) Rava bases his Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. - who said that if Yesomim who claimed land for their father's debt, their Ba'al Chov may claim it from them.

(a) From Yesomim - one may claim only Ziburis, even according to the opinion of Rav Sheishes, who holds 'be'Shel Kol Adam Hein Shamin'.

(b) Based on that premise, we suggest that our Mishnah might be speaking about a case where the Yesomim have Ziburis and the other Ba'al Chov, Idis and Beinonis. The Chachamim's statement 'Zeh Govah ... ve'Zeh Govah ... ' will work - because the Ba'al Chov will now claim Ziburis, and theYesomim, Beinonis.

(c) We reject this answer too however - on the basis of the fact that if one did claim from Yesomim Beinonis, one may retain it.

(a) The three lands for Nisu'in - are Yehudah, Eiver ha'Yardein and the Galil. Their significance in this regard is - that a husband cannot force his wife to move from one to the other.

(b) A man ...

1. ... cannot force his wife to move from a town in one of the lands to a town in one of the other lands
2. ... can force his wife to move from a town or city in one of the lands to another.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, a man or a woman can force his spouse to move from a less comfortable area to a more comfortable one, but not vice-versa - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that either way, he cannot force her, because any major change in a person's lifestyle can cause him to become ill, which is why Shmuel would later say 'Shinuy Veses T'chilas Choli' (a radical change from what one is used to, causes illness.

(d) The advantages of living in ...

1. ... a city (which is larger than a town on account of its shopping facilities) over living in a town are - that 1. that the shopping and business opportunities are better, and 2. that everything is available there.
2. ... a town over living in a city is - that there is more space, so people have gardens and the air is better.

(8)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah, which praised the people who volunteered to come and live in the city of Yerushalayim - that there are serious disadvantages in living in a city.

(b) ben Sira said "*Kol* Yemei Ani Ra'im" in spite of Shabbos and Yom-tov, when even the poor eat well - because of Shmuel, who said 'Shinuy Veses T'chilas Choli'.

(c) And when he said that the poor man had his vineyards on top of the mountains - he was referring to the fact that, when one fertilizes a vineyard on top of a mountain, most of the fertilizer drops into the vineyards below.

(a) Everybody can force their family to move to Eretz Yisrael and not to move out of it - women, no less than men.

(b) Yerushalayim - has the same Din as Eretz Yisrael in this regard.

(c) Given that the money of K'putki is heavier than that of Eretz Yisrael (and is therefore more valuable), if a man married his wife ...

1. ... in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in K'putki - he will have to pay the currency of Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... in K'putki and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael - he will have to pay her the money of Eretz Yisrael, according to the Tana Kama ...
3. ... the money of K'putki, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'ha'Kol Ma'alin le'Eretz Yisrael - 'ha'Kol' comes to include an Eved Ivri, who is obligated to move to Eretz Yisrael with his master.

(b) According to those who insert Eved Ivri in the Mishnah - it comes to include even from a more comfortable area to a less comfortable one.

(c) '*ha'Kol* Ma'alin li'Yerushalayim' comes to include - even from a more comfortable area to a less comfortable one.

(d) The Tana finds it necessary to add 've'Ein *ha'Kol* Motzi'in Mimenu' to include the same thing, despite the fact that it is obvious once we know that Yerushalayim is like Eretz Yisrael in this regard - because it mentioned it in the Reisha.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah always follow the currency of Eretz Yisrael, whether the husband married his wife there, or whether he divorced her there (neither following the place where he married her [because that is where he obligated himself], nor after the place where he divorced her) - because he is not sure which one to follow, and since he holds that Kesuvah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, he is lenient both ways.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel always goes after the place where he married her. This is because he holds 'Kesuvah d'Oraysa', in which case he treats it like every other debt (which follows the place where the Sh'tar was written, as we shall now see).

(c) If someone produces a Sh'tar Chov which was written in Bavel, the debtor must pay with Babylonian currency; if it was written in Eretz Yisrael, then he must pay Eretz Yisrael currency. If no country is mentioned in the Sh'tar - then the debtor pays according to the currency of the place where the Sh'tar is produced.

(d) When the Tana concludes 'Mah she'Ein Kein bi'Kesuvah" - he is referring to the Reisha of the Beraisa, which obligates the debtor to pay the currency of the town where the Sh'tar was written (and he comes to preclude from the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who, we just learned, holds that Kesuvah has the same Din as any Sh'tar Chov).

1. ... pieces of silver - because the Beraisa speaks when the word 'coins' appears appears in the Sh'tar.
2. ... P'rutos (so he should be able to give him copper P'rutos or silver to the value of a hundred copper P'rutos - because nobody manufactures P'rutos of silver.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lases Lachem es Eretz Kena'an, Liheyos Lachem L'Elokim"- that if someone lives outside Eretz Yisrael, it is as if he has no G-d.

(b) The serious ramifications of this statement are - that one should rather live in Eetz Yisrael in a town which is inhabited mainly by Nochrim, that in a Jewish town in Chutz la'Aretz.

(c) If the Pasuk is not to be taken literally, what it really means is - that someone who lives outside Eretz Yisrael is considered as if he was serving idols.

(d) When David ha'Melech was forcibly driven out of Eretz Yisrael - he declared " Because they have driven me out today from being connected with the inheritance of Hashem, saying 'Go and serve other gods' ", which bears out what we just said.

(a) Once Rebbi Zeira had made his decision to move to Eretz Yisrael, he was careful to keep out of Rav Yehudah's sight - because in Rav Yehudah's opinion, someone who leaves Bavel, as long as long as the Golus is in progress, even to go to Eretz Yisrael, transgresses an Asei.

(b) According to Rav Yehudah, the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah Yavo'u, ve'Shamah Yihyu" places an Isur on moving out of Bavel, even in order to go to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus). According to Rebbi Zeira - it means that the K'lei Shares must remain there.

(c) Rav Yehudah learns the Isur of moving out of Bavel, even in order to go to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus), from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah Yavo'u, ve'Shamah Yihyu". According to Rebbi Zeira - it means that Yisrael are not permitted to take Eretz Yisrael by force.