When the court appoints a second agent, must they do so in the presence of the first agent, or may it be when not in his presence? He then resolves it: The second agent may be appointed either in his presence or not in his presence. Similarly, they sent from there, from Eretz Yisrael, this ruling: The court may appoint another agent either in the presence of the first agent or not in his presence.

§ The Gemara relates another incident, involving a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted a bill of divorce: If I do not arrive from now until thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of the thirtieth day, but he was prevented from crossing the river by the fact that the ferry was located on the other side of the river, so he did not cross the river within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived. Shmuel said: That is not considered to be an arrival, even though it is clear that he intended to arrive, so the bill of divorce is valid.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who said to agents with whom he had deposited a bill of divorce: If I do not appease my wife within thirty days, let this be a bill of divorce. He went to appease her, but she was not appeased. Rav Yosef said: Did he give her a large vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars but she was not appeased? Although his inability to appease her was a result of his lack of financial means, since he did not properly fulfill his condition to appease her, the bill of divorce is valid.

There are those who say a different version of the statement, that Rav Yosef said: Did he need to give her a vessel full of dinars in order to appease her? This is a situation where he attempted to appease her, but she was not appeased. Therefore, he did fulfill his condition, and the bill of divorce is not effective, as it is not his fault that she was not appeased.

The Gemara explains the difference between the first and second versions of Rav Yosef’s statement: This second version, in which the bill of divorce does not take effect, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one’s control have legal standing with regard to bills of divorce. Therefore, the bill of divorce is not valid, as the husband did all he could to appease her. This first version, in which the bill of divorce is valid, is according to the one who says: Circumstances beyond one’s control have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.

MISHNA: The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person, with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the teruma and tithes separated from the produce, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money with the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that perhaps the priest or the Levite died in the interim, or that the poor person became rich and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man’s tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate teruma and tithes.

If in fact they died, then he must obtain permission from the heirs in order to continue the arrangement. However, if he lent money to the deceased, and he stipulated in the presence of the court that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.

GEMARA: The mishna assumes that the priest, Levite, and poor person acquire the teruma and tithes that the creditor separates from his produce, but they agree at the time of the loan that the tithes and teruma will then be acquired by the creditor as payment of their debt. The Gemara asks: And can the priest, Levite, and poor person transfer possession of the terumot or tithes back to the creditor even though the produce did not come into their possession?

Rav says: This is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites, i.e., people who have an arrangement with a specific priest or Levite to give him their teruma or tithes. The specific priest or Levite therefore has a presumptive status of ownership of the tithes or teruma and is considered to have acquired them. And Shmuel says: This is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others, who acquire the teruma and tithes on their behalf. The lender is then able to reclaim the gifts as repayment of the loan. Ulla said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says in other contexts: The Sages, by means of an ordinance, rendered one who does not acquire like one who acquires. Here, too, the Sages instituted an ordinance to enable this arrangement.

The Gemara explains why each of the aforementioned Sages disagreed with the others. All the other Sages, i.e., Shmuel and Ulla, do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Rav, because the mishna does not teach explicitly that the halakha is stated with regard to associates of the priesthood and the Levites. Rav and Ulla do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel because the mishna does not teach that this halakha is stated with regard to one who has the priest or Levite acquire the gifts through the act of acquisition of others. Rav and Shmuel also do not state their opinions in accordance with the opinion of Ulla because we do not establish the mishna to be stated in accordance with an individual opinion, in this case Rabbi Yosei; rather, the assumption is that the ruling of the mishna is written in accordance with the majority opinion.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, with the presumption that they are still alive.

The baraita continues: And he may contract with them according to the low market rate, i.e., he may set a price for the gifts that he will separate in the future based on either their value at the time of the loan, or their value when they will be separated, whichever is lower. And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest, meaning that if the market rate falls, it will not be considered as though they are repaying in excess of the amount of the loan. And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan; even after the Sabbatical Year, the lender may continue to collect his debt in this manner.

The baraita continues: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he may not renege. If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, as he thought that he would not need to separate any teruma or tithes and therefore thought that he would not collect payment for the loan, although it later became clear that he was mistaken, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of one’s loan that one had thought lost. Once he despaired of retrieving the loan, the sum of the loan is permanently acquired by the borrowers and the lender may not use the tithes and teruma to serve as repayment.

The Gemara clarifies the rulings of the baraita: The Master said: He may contract with them according to the low market rate. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even though he did not contract explicitly that he would use the lower market price, he is considered like one who did so contract and may do so anyway.

The baraita also teaches: And this is not subject to the prohibition of interest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: Since, when the priest or Levite has no teruma or tithes that he received from the creditor, e.g., when the grain in the field did not sprout due to a drought, he does not give anything to the creditor in repayment of the loan, this indicates that it is not a true loan. Therefore, when the priest or Levite has teruma and tithes, this also is not subject to the prohibition of interest.

The baraita also teaches: And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel this loan. The Gemara explains: The reason is that concerning this loan, one cannot read the verse stated with regard to the cancellation of debts by the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: “He shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since in any event one cannot claim repayment of this type of loan, it is not addressed by the verse in question.

The baraita also teaches: And if the lender seeks to renege on this agreement, he cannot renege. Rav Pappa said: They taught this only with regard to a homeowner, i.e., an owner of produce, who wishes to renege on his agreement with a priest. In that situation, the homeowner cannot demand repayment of the loan with money. However, with regard to a priest who wishes to renege on his agreement with a homeowner, if he seeks to renege, he may renege. What is the reason for this? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 44a): In any transaction, if the purchaser gave the seller money but did not yet pull the produce, then the seller can renege on the sale. Here, since the priest received money and the homeowner did not yet formally acquire the produce, the priest can renege on the agreement.

The baraita also teaches: If the owner despaired of retrieving the loan, he may not separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money because one may not separate teruma and tithes on the basis of a loan that he had thought lost. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as he is no longer owed the money? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the seeds produced stalks and became dried out. Lest you say that growth of stalks is a significant matter, as there is a chance that the produce will still grow and so he does not fully despair, the baraita teaches us that even in such a situation, since the produce is very unlikely to recover, he does despair of retrieving the loan.

§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to one who lends money to a priest or to a Levite in court and they died before repaying the loan, he separates teruma and tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that there is one from that tribe who inherited from them, and he need not confirm that the deceased priest or Levite has immediate heirs. He then continues the arrangement based on the transfer of the debt to the heirs. And if he lent money to a poor person in court, and the poor person died before repaying the loan, the creditor separates tithes on the basis of that money with the presumption that the poor of the Jewish people would agree to continue the arrangement. Rabbi Aḥai says: It is with the presumption that the poor of the world would agree to continue the arrangement.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai? Rabbi Aḥai too must have meant only poor Jews and not poor gentiles, who are not given tithes.