I'm having a hard time with the gemara about Matanos and אין לו תובעין, just trying to get the basic ideas. One place:
The gemara says that if the king collects taxes from a person, taking matanos in payment, the person has to give the matanos' value afterwards. It takes that as proof that מתנות יש לו תובעין. I wasn't sure why.
It's clear that it isn't because the person has a חיוב שמירה, like a שואל, because the second case there is when the matanos were taking by robbers, and there is no obligation to repay.
Here's a tentative explanation: Reuven owes money to Shimon. Shimon comes to collect, and finds something belonging to Levi in Reuven's house, and just takes that. Reuven is now off the hook from Shimon. Levi has no way of collecting from Levi for whichever reason.
Now can Levi go to Reuven and say, my money was used to pay your debt - now pay me back for my loss?
If so, that's the case in the gemara. יש לו תובעין means, the matanos already actually belong to the cohen. So the king used the cohen's money to collect his debt - now the owner has to pay the cohen back.
Whereas, if אין לו תובעין, the matanos still belong to the owner, only he has a mitzvah to give them to the cohanim. Once they are gone, there is no longer any reason to give them.
Does this sound right?
The gemara says that if the king collects taxes from a person, taking matanos in payment, the person has to give the matanos' value afterwards. It takes that as proof that מתנות יש לו תובעין. I wasn't sure why.
It's clear that it isn't because the person has a חיוב שמירה, like a שואל, because the second case there is when the matanos were taking by robbers, and there is no obligation to repay.
Here's a tentative explanation: Reuven owes money to Shimon. Shimon comes to collect, and finds something belonging to Levi in Reuven's house, and just takes that. Reuven is now off the hook from Shimon. Levi has no way of collecting from Levi for whichever reason.
Now can Levi go to Reuven and say, my money was used to pay your debt - now pay me back for my loss?
If so, that's the case in the gemara. יש לו תובעין means, the matanos already actually belong to the cohen. So the king used the cohen's money to collect his debt - now the owner has to pay the cohen back.
Whereas, if אין לו תובעין, the matanos still belong to the owner, only he has a mitzvah to give them to the cohanim. Once they are gone, there is no longer any reason to give them.
Does this sound right?
Last edited by MichoelR on Thu May 07, 2015 1:10 am; edited 1 time in total