More Discussions for this daf
1. Rashi's source for Tali 2. Slight Correction 3. מקור רש"י לתלי
DAF DISCUSSIONS - GITIN 37

Aharon Braha HY"V asked (in Hebrew):

שיטת רש"י ותלי ליה: מנין לרש"י לכתוב ד"תלי" מלשון לתלות על העץ נגד הירושלמי (כדפירש הראש)

The Kollel replies:

לכבוד אהרון,

הב"ח בחושן משפט ס' ס"ז מסביר את שיטת רש"י, וכן מובא בש"ך חו"מ ס"ז-י"א.

קודם כל, לא ביטלנו בזה הלכות שמיטה כי באמת הלוה אינו חייב להחזיר אלא שהוא רוצה להחזיר מעצמו והמלווה אמר לו כמצות התורה "משמט אני", כדי לקיים מצות התורה של "וזה דבר השמיטה". אחרי שהוא קיים מצוה זו על ידי אמירת "משמט אני", זכותו המלאה של המלווה לקבל את הכסף!

בלשון הב"ח : "ולמה זה יחזור, ליטול המעות שכבר נתן שהרי אין עליו אלא לומר אעפ"כ ולא ליטול המעות והלכך יכול לתלותו על העץ וכו'".

וזה יותר נראה לרש"י מפירוש הירושלמי .

כל-טוב,

ראובן וינר.

Aharon Braha responds:

שאלה:

קודם כל, תודה רבה לכם בשביל הכל.

ביחס לתשובתכם, מכל מקום, זאת לא תשובה מלאה. שאלתי הייתה יותר ביחס למה רש"י חולק על הירושלמי. כלל בידינו שכל מקום שאפשר לסדר הסוגיה בדרך שלא תהא מחלוקת בין הירושלמי לבבלי צריכים לסדר את הדבר כך (וכך מסביר למעשה גם הראש וכמה ראשונים). כלל מובא ביד מלאכי כללי פוסקים שני תלמודים אות י' וזה לשונו... דאפשר לן דלא לשווי פלוגתא בין הגמרא דידן לירושלמי עבדינן, בית יוסף סימן ר"א ורי"ז ד'ה הנודר מן החלב ומביא עוד מקורות. . . ואף על פי שהפרוש רחוק קצת . . .עכ"ל.

יכול להיות גם שרש"י יחלוק על כלל זה אבל אם כן מה הדבר שמכריח אותו כל כך לפרש בדרך זו נגד הירושלמי.

שכר כפול מן השמים, אהרון ברכא הי"ו

The Kollel replies:

לכבוד אהרון,

הירושלמי בשביעית י-א כותב "אומר לו בשפה רפה והימין פשוטה לקבל". רש"י כידוע מסביר את לשון התלמוד על פי הפשט כמה שאפשר, והלשון "תלי ליה" משמע טפי שתולה "אותו" (על עץ) ולא שתולה "בו" (את עיניו), מדלא אמרו "תלי ביה", ולא שתולה "לה" (לזרועו) מדלא אמרו "תלי לה", וגם מדלא פירשו מה הוא תולה.

כל- טוב,

ראובן וינר.

==========================================================================

The following is copied from the Kollel's Insights to the Daf, Gittin (37:1)

1) ACCEPTING REPAYMENT OF ONE'S LOANS AFTER SHEMITAH CANCELED THEM

QUESTION: The year of Shevi'is removes all outstanding debts. If the borrower desires to pay back the debt even though he is not obligated to do so, the Mishnah in Shevi'is teaches that the lender must say, "Meshamet Ani." If the borrower insists that he wants to return it nonetheless and says, "Even so [I want to return it!]", then the lender may accept it. The Gemara here adds that the lender may "hang him until he says this" ("v'Tali Lei Ad d'Amar Hachi").

What does the Gemara mean?

(a) RASHI explains that if the borrower does not immediately offer to pay back the loan (even though Shemitah canceled it), the lender may "hang him" and force him to say that he wants to pay back the debt despite the fact that Shemitah canceled it.

The ROSH and Rishonim ask that according to Rashi's explanation, how can Shemitah ever cancel a debt? If the lender has the right to force the borrower to pay him back, then Shemitah is entirely ineffective!

The TOSFOS RID (and BACH in Choshen Mishpat 67) explain that Rashi is distinguishing between the original cancellation of the debt (before the borrower attempts to pay it back despite Shemitah), and the second cancellation of the debt -- when the lender says "Meshamet Ani" after being offered to be repaid despite Shemitah. If the borrower never offers to repay the debt, the debt is canceled and the lender has no right to even ask for it. Once the borrower offers to repay the debt, though, then the lender is only required to say the words, "Meshamet Ani"; after saying those words, he may do whatever he can to collect the loan.

It seems that according to Rashi, when the borrower offers to repay the loan despite Shemitah, he is acknowledging that he does not want Shemitah to affect this debt. A person has the right to forfeit the Hashmatah of debts that normally occurs during Shemitah. Therefore, as soon as he says that he wants to pay, the debt remains like it was originally. Although the lender is still prohibited from openly claiming the repayment of the loan, he may force the borrower to say that he wants to repay the loan despite Shemitah, since the borrower actually owes him the money. (Perhaps the Mitzvah to say "Meshamet Ani" and not to claim the debt outright is only a requirement mid'Rabanan instituted because of "Mar'is Ayin.")

(b) Many Rishonim disagree with Rashi. The RAMBAN in the name of the ARUCH, the RASHBA in the name of RABEINU BARUCH, and the ROSH (4:9) and others explains that the term "v'Tali Lei" does not mean that the lender may hang the person, but that he may wait expectantly ("hang his eyes [in expectation]" (Rosh), or "hang out his hand" (Ramban)), showing the borrower that he is waiting to hear the borrower's offer to pay him back nonetheless. He is permitted to convey the message, conspicuously, to the borrower that he wants his money back. The Rosh cites support for this from the Yerushalmi which says that when the lender says "Meshamet Ani," he may stretch out his hands in a gesture showing that he is waiting for the money. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 9:29) suggests a similar explanation.

(c) The RA'AVAD on the Rif (and cited by the Ramban) explains that the Gemara means that *after* the borrower says that he nonetheless wants to pay back, and the lender receives the money, he should not immediately put the money in his pocket. Rather, he should leave it hanging in front of him in order to show that he is reluctant to take it back, so that it not look as though he is not canceling the debt full-heartedly.

According to this explanation, why did Rabah become upset at Aba bar Marsa when Aba bar Marsa did not say that he wants to repay the debt after Rabah said that he let Shemitah annul the debt? Even if Aba would say that he wants to pay it, Aba should still show reluctance! Aba was justified, then, in not volunteering to repay the debt right away! Rabah should have no reason to be upset just because Aba did not offer to pay back the debt.

The Ra'avad answers that Rabah was going beyond the letter of the law by letting Shemitah annul his debts; he was doing so as a Midas Chasidus, and not because the Torah required it (because Hillel had already instituted Pruzbul). Therefore, it was not required for him to be "Toleh" the money. Rather, he was allowed to take the money back immediately and even be upset at Aba for not offering to give it to him on his own accord.