In this daf, we continue our sweet and deep learning of the halachos of separating tithes on a loan. We begin by looking at the machlokes between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and Rabbi Achai regarding poor Samaritans, and whether we can continue our tithing arrangement with them. We then move on to a beautiful discussion of what happens when a poor person becomes wealthy, and why the Chachamim made a special takanah for when a poor person dies, but not for when he becomes wealthy, teaching us a powerful lesson about what is common in this world.
We also delve into the halachos of inheritance when a Kohen or Levi passes away. The Gemara clarifies what kind of inheritance allows a homeowner to continue separating tithes on the loan, focusing on the crucial distinction between inheriting land and inheriting money. We will see how even a tiny piece of land can have a major impact on how much the creditor can collect, illustrated by a fascinating ma'aseh in the court of Abaye.
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲנִיֵּי כוּתִיִּים.
The practical difference between them is a case where the only poor people available are poor Samaritans. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, they are not considered proper converts, so one may not continue the arrangement with them. According to Rabbi Achai, they are considered converts, and one may continue the arrangement with them.
הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי – אֵין מַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו, וְזָכָה הַלָּה בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ.
It was taught in a braisa: If the poor person became wealthy, the homeowner may no longer separate tithes based on his outstanding loan, and that borrower, who is now wealthy, acquires that which is in his hand, meaning the remaining loan money, since the understanding was that it would only be repaid through tithes.
וְרַבָּנַן, מַאי שְׁנָא לְמִיתָה דַּעֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא לַעֲשִׁירוּת דְּלָא עֲבוּד תַּקַּנְתָּא?
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, what is the difference regarding death, that they made an ordinance to allow the lender to continue separating tithes on behalf of other poor people, and what is the difference regarding wealth, that they did not make an ordinance?
מִיתָה שְׁכִיחָא, עֲשִׁירוּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
The Gemara answers: Death is common, so the Sages enacted a decree; whereas wealth is not common, and the Sages did not enact ordinances for uncommon occurrences.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: חַבְרָךְ מִית – אַשַּׁר, אִיתְעַשַּׁר – לָא תְּאַשַּׁר.
Rav Pappa said: This is the meaning of that which people say in a folk proverb: If they tell you "Your friend died" — believe it; but if they tell you "He became wealthy" — do not believe it until you see proof.
מֵת – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת וְכוּ׳:
We learned in the Mishnah: If the priest or Levite died, the lender needs to obtain permission from the heirs, etc.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ.
It was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This refers specifically to heirs who inherited.
וּמִי אִיכָּא יוֹרְשִׁין דְּלָא יָרְתִי?!
The Gemara asks: But are there heirs who do not inherit? What does this expression mean?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ קַרְקַע, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ כְּסָפִים.
Rather, Rabbi Yochanan said: It means heirs who inherited land, from which a debt can be collected, and not heirs who inherited money, from which a lender cannot collect.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא מַחַט. מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם.
Rabbi Yonatan said: If the deceased priest left his heirs land of the size of a needle, the lender collects only the size of a needle's worth of produce. If he left land of the size of an ax, the lender collects the size of an ax's worth of produce.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִנִּיחַ מְלֹא מַחַט – גּוֹבֶה מְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם;
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even if he left only land of the size of a needle, the lender collects up to the size of an ax's worth of produce, because the land serves as a gateway to collect the entire debt.
וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּקַטִּינָא דְאַבָּיֵי.
And this is like the incident of the small field of Abaye, where a creditor was able to repeatedly seize a tiny inherited field until his entire debt was paid.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי: ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ.
The Rabbis taught in a braisa: In the case of an Israelite who said to a Levite: "There is tithe belonging to you in my possession," we are not concerned about the terumas maaser that is in it, and we assume it is still intact.
״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ.
But if he said, "There is a kor of tithe belonging to you in my possession," we are concerned about the terumas maaser that is in it, that perhaps the Levite already separated it.
מַאי קָאָמַר?
The Gemara asks: What is the braisa saying? What is the reason for this distinction?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
Abaye said: This is what it is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to a Levite: "There is tithe belonging to you in my possession, and here is its monetary value," we are not concerned lest the Levite made it terumas maaser for tithes he has in another place, because since the amount was unspecified, he could not calculate the correct amount to separate.
״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
But if he said, "There is a kor of tithe belonging to you in my possession, and here is its monetary value," we are concerned lest the Levite made it terumas maaser for tithes in another place, since he knew the exact amount.
אַטּוּ בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּשָׁקְלִי דְּמֵי וּמְשַׁוּוּ לֵיהּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?!
The Gemara objects: Is that to say we are dealing with wicked people, who take money for the tithe and then go and make it terumas maaser, thereby rendering the produce forbidden to the Israelite who bought it?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבֶן לֵוִי ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, הֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
Rather, Rav Mesharshiyya the son of Rav Idi said: This is what it is saying: In the case of an Israelite who said to the son of a Levite: "There is tithe belonging to your father in my possession, here is its monetary value," we are not concerned lest his father, before he died, made it terumas maaser for tithes in another place.
״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, וְהֵילָךְ דָּמָיו״, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאוֹ אָבִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
But if he said, "There is a kor of tithe belonging to your father in my possession, and here is its monetary value," we are concerned lest his father made it terumas maaser for tithes in another place.
וְכִי נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוּם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף?!
The Gemara objects: But are Chaverim suspected of separating terumah from that which is not nearby? The father would not have separated terumas maaser from this tithe for tithes elsewhere, as they were not in the same location!
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְלֵוִי ״כָּךְ אָמַר לִי אַבָּא: מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קִיץ לָא הֲוָה מְתַקֵּן לֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: In the case of the son of an Israelite who said to a Levite: "So my father told me: 'There is tithe belonging to you in my possession,'" or "'There is tithe belonging to your father in my possession,'" we are concerned about the terumas maaser that is in it, meaning we fear it was never separated, since it was not a set amount, the homeowner would not have fixed it by separating the terumas maaser.
״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ אוֹ ״כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי״ – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּקִיץ תַּקּוֹנֵי תַּקְּנֵיהּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
But if he said, "There is a kor of tithe belonging to you in my possession," or "There is a kor of tithe belonging to your father in my possession," we are not concerned about the terumas maaser that is in it, since it was a set amount, the homeowner surely fixed it by separating the terumas maaser on behalf of the Levite.
וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִתְרוֹם תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר?!
The Gemara asks: But does the homeowner have the authority to separate terumas maaser? That is the job of the Levite!
אִין, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גַּמְלָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ –
The Gemara answers: Yes, this is in accordance with the view of Abba Elazar ben Gamla. As it was taught in a braisa, Abba Elazar ben Gamla says: The verse states, "And your terumah shall be reckoned to you" —
The daf begins by explaining that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and Rabbi Achai hinges on whether poor Samaritans are halachically considered converts. Next, the Gemara discusses a baraita stating that if a poor borrower becomes wealthy, the homeowner can no longer separate tithes on his behalf, and the borrower keeps the remaining money. The Gemara explains that the Sages only enacted a takanah for death, which is common, but not for wealth, which is uncommon—a concept Rav Pappa connects to a well-known folk saying. We then learn that if a Kohen or Levi dies, the lender needs permission from heirs who inherited land, as debts cannot be collected from inherited money. Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yochanan dispute how much can be collected based on the size of the inherited land, which the Gemara compares to a ruling by Abaye regarding orphans who inherited a small field. Finally, the Gemara analyzes a baraita regarding an Israelite who tells a Levite (or his son) that he has tithes in his possession, exploring whether we must worry that the Levite already designated those tithes as terumas ma'aser for other produce.
The Gemara brings down a famous folk saying quoted by Rav Pappa: "If someone tells you your friend died, believe it; but if they tell you your friend became wealthy, do not believe it." The Sages explain the deeper reality behind this: death is a natural, common part of this world, but sudden wealth is highly uncommon. We must live with the realistic understanding that true, lasting change in our material or spiritual status does not happen overnight.
It is easy to fall into the trap of waiting for a sudden windfall, whether we are waiting for a sudden burst of wealth to solve our financial worries, or a sudden wave of inspiration to fix our spiritual struggles. But Hashem runs His world through steady, daily avodah, not through constant, dramatic miracles. Real growth is built slowly, brick by brick, through our daily choices and consistent effort.
Instead of waiting for a sudden transformation that "is not common," focus on the small, steady steps you can take today. True spiritual wealth is acquired through the consistency of your daily learning and mitzvos, not through waiting for a sudden inspiration that may never come.
Today, do not wait for the perfect mood or a sudden burst of inspiration to do what is right. Take one small, concrete action in your learning or davening, and do it with absolute consistency.