משנה: הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. הַלֹּוֶוה מִן הַגֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירוּ בָנָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה וְכָל הַמְקַיֵים אֶת דְּבָרָיו רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him124This is the text in all Mishnah mss., whether Palestinian, Babylonian, or Maimonidean traditions. However, the Babli (Qiddušin 17b/18a) quotes the Mishnah in the form “the Sages are displeased with him,” and the text here, “the Sages are pleased with him,” is given only as a baraita. The meaning of the distinctions made in the Babli is not clear; therefore, Maimonides omits the rule in his Code. The only coherent explanation of the Mishnah is that given by Rabbi Isaac in Tosaphot (Qiddušin 18a, s. v. כאן) and R. Nissim Gerondi in his commentary to Alfassi (Qiddušin #596): Since a convert is like a newborn for Jewish law, the children converting with him are not legally his Jewish children and the law will not force the debtor to pay after the lender’s death. However, the children are his own children and not to pay the sons after their father’s death is reprehensible. If the convert has children after his conversion, they are his Jewish children and all laws of inheritance apply. The only problem arises if his pregnant wife converted with him. The Babli notes that in such a case, the Sages are displeased with any repayment to the child born after conversion. The reason given by the commentators is that the child is Jewish by birth; if the laws of inheritance did apply one would conclude that the child is legally a relative of his father and his older siblings. But the fact is that a Gentile father never can have a legal relationship with his child by a Jewish mother. For example, if a Jewish man marries his late father’s other wife, this relationship is incestuous and the marriage is non-existent; the woman can marry another man without a divorce. But if the child conceived as a Gentile would marry one of his late father’s wives other than his mother, while the marriage is not tolerated it is valid and would need a formal divorce. The Yerushalmi does not consider this unlikely case. {The Šulḥan Arukh,Ḥošen Mišpaṭ §127(2) decides otherwise, following what is reported in the name of Rashi.}. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word125The rules of acquisition are spelled out in Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5. The rule is that by rabbinic decree, transfer of movable property can be accomplished only by actual or symbolic possession. This means that if the buyer pays before he takes possession, the seller is legally free to return the money and sell the goods to a higher bidder. However, doing so is morally reprehensible and the tricked buyer may ask the court to declare (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2): “He Who made the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Tower of Babylon pay, He will make him pay who does not stand by his word.”.
הלכה: רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר וּבִלְבַד לְבָנָיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי מַהוּ וּבִלְבַד לְבָנָיו. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו. אִם אֵין לוֹ בָנִים יַחֲזִיר לִבְנֹתָיו. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְאֵין יְרוּשַׁת הַגֵּר דְּבַר תּוֹרָה יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ מִי שֶׁמֵּת סוֹף מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ לֹא יַחֲזִיר וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, only to his sons. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “only to his sons?” If he has sons, one should return it to his sons. If he has no sons, one should return it to his daughters. That you should not say, since the inheritance of the convert is not settled in the Torah126The laws of inheritance in Num. 27:6–11 appoint the sons as heirs; daughters are to inherit only if there are no sons. [However, by rabbinic decree unmarried daughters may claim a dowry before the inheritance can be distributed.] In the absence of children, the father’s family inherits in ascending and descending order; the mother’s family never inherits., he should return it to the children. Similarly, if somebody died who was the last of his family and he has no heir127No relative on his father’s side can be found after diligent search. except his mother one does not have to repay, but if the debtor repaid the Sages are pleased with him.
הַגּוֹזֵל שֶׁעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת הַגְּזֵילָה הַמְּקַבֵּל הִימֶּנּוּ אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. 128Tosephta 8:11 and Babli Baba Qama 94d, speaking of “the robber or one who lends on interest.” The Babli restricts the advice only to those robbers and lenders who have no income whatsoever except robbery and interest, and probably refers only to Rebbi’s time. The robber who repents and wants to return what he robbed, if somebody accepts it from him, the Sages are displeased with him.
רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּדְבָרִים זִמְנִיין דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. וְזִימְנִין דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody trades in promises129Nothing has been written, no money has yet changed hands, no act of acquisition has been performed. {The text here follows the Rome ms., the Leyden ms. and Venice print have מניין דאת אמר.} Parallels are in Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a 3:14 (quoted in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a, where Rav disagrees and holds that one is free to change his mind) and Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a4:3,4 (fol. 9c-d)., there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only130“Only” must be a scribal error since the curse by the court is more of a punishment than the displeasure of the Sages. The case here applies when money has changed hands but no act of acquisition has taken place. that one gives him up to “Him who made pay125The rules of acquisition are spelled out in Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5. The rule is that by rabbinic decree, transfer of movable property can be accomplished only by actual or symbolic possession. This means that if the buyer pays before he takes possession, the seller is legally free to return the money and sell the goods to a higher bidder. However, doing so is morally reprehensible and the tricked buyer may ask the court to declare (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2): “He Who made the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Tower of Babylon pay, He will make him pay who does not stand by his word.””.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַנּוֹתֵן עֵירָבוֹן טַבַּעַת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ זָהוּב אָמַר לֵיהּ טַבַּעַת. מַה בֵּין זָהוּב וּמַה בֵּין טַבַּעַת. זָהוּב דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת טַבַּעַת בְּעֵיינָהּ הוּא. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal131Since the ring is a deposit, taking the ring is not an act of acquisition. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 48b) disagrees and considers taking a pledge as an act of acquisition.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring? Gold coins are exchanged132If payment is made, the depositor can reclaim only a gold coin of the same value, not the identical piece., a ring remains as it is.
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ הָהֵן לָאו צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק אָמַר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הִין שֶׁל צֶדֶק הָיָה. רַב פְּלִיג דְּרַב אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ הַמְּטַלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּרְשוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיוֹצִא אֶת כֹּל מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּזַכֵּינוּ בָהֶן אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת מְקוֹמָן. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב כָּאן כְּשֶׁהֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ כָּאן כְּשֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ. רַב פְּלִיג דְּרַב אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. תֵּדָע לָךְ חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפְקִיד עֵירָבוֹן עַל מִילְחָא וְיָקְרָת. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רַב אָמַר לֵיהּ אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ כָּל עֵירָבוֹנוֹ אוֹ יִמְסוֹר לוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מִתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. וְכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן לְמִידַּת הַדִּין הוּא וּמַה דְרַב נְהִיג לְמִידַּת חֲסִידוּת. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind133Also in Ma‘ser Šeni 4:7 (fol. 55b), Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 (fol. 9c-d), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a. In the Babli, the statement is restricted to large gifts.. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?134This cryptic statement is explained in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a: “Why does the verse mention ‘a just epha and a just hin’? Is not a hin a part of an epha, how can one have correct measures for one and not the other? One takes biblical hîn as rabbinic hēn ‘yes’. That your yes should be a yes and your no a no, the same in your mind and your mouth.”” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind135This is taken as a legal statement; at the end it will be accepted as a moral precept only.. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “136Tosephta Qiddušin 1:8, Baba Batra 5:2; Yerushalmi Qiddušin 1:4 (fol. 60b), Giṭṭin 8:1 (fol. 49b); Babli Baba Batra 85a. Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted137Things deposited on a persons’s real estate are his property as soon as he has the right to them.; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this138Why should he not change his mind since there was no acquisition and no money given?? One is if he was standing with him139In this provisional answer, it is only asserted that the promise of a gift to another person is binding. But the question remains, why should it be binding if there was no acquisition, which could only be effected by removing the gift from the donor’s property?, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt140In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 48b, the story is told of R. Ḥiyya bar Josef, who appeared before R. Joḥanan.; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety141In the Babli, loc.cit., Rav holds that a surety gives a claim for the value of the surety while R. Joḥanan holds that a surety establishes a claim for the entire lot in question. The version of the story here implies that Rav was the judge. or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so142For his own gifts he establishes the rule that a gift is unchangeable, for commercial transactions he says that they are reversible, even if that would be morally wrong.? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.