Proof from Pidyon Haben?
In a sugya spanning yesterday’s and today’s daf, they ask a question to Rabbi Yannai and receive a response from Rabbi Yochanan!
The question:
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי יַנַּאי: שׂוֹכֵר אָמַר נָתַתִּי, וּמַשְׂכִּיר אָמַר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי – עַל מִי לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה?
§ The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yannai: If a renter says to his landlord: I already gave the rental fee to you, and the landlord says: I did not take any payment from you, upon whom is the burden of proof?
and the eventual answer, after a clarifying gap:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תְּנֵיתוּהָ:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: Also this, you have already learned in a mishna (111a):
שָׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ, נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל.If a hired laborer claims his wages at the proper time, on the day his wages are due, and the employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and takes his wages. So too, in the case of rent, if the landlord demands payment, and the renter claims to have paid, the landlord should be able to take an oath and then take the payment.
This is not impossible, since they overlapped in span, so Rabbi Yochanan could pipe up. Still, it is strange that Rabbi Yannai never answers.
As we should expect, there are texts which have Rabbi Yannai answer. We should expect it either because of the earlier “Rabbi Yannai” which sets up the expectation, causing Yochanan → Yanni. Or, IMHO more likely, becase R”Y is a common contraction, a scribe would abbreviate Rabbi Yannai → R”Y. And then, since Rabbi Yochanan is by far the more common, many scribes would simply expand R”Y into Rabbi Yochanan.
Here is the breakdown. The printings have R’ Yochanan:
Among manuscripts with Rabbi Yannai, there is Florence 8-9:
and Vatican 1115a:
Several other manuscripts have Yochanan.
Note that in the translation above, the word תְּנֵיתוּהָ became “Also this, you have already learned” and it is resolved by comparison to a sachir bizmano, which is taken as a sachir on the very day. So the earlier gap, of clarification, works to establish the question as being about the very due date. I don’t know that I find the proof convincing, but regardless, the framing is that Rabbi Yochanan (or Yannai) were answering with that aspect clarified.
What is the proof that someone doesn’t pay before it is due?
אֵימַת? אִי בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ – תְּנֵינָא, אִי לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ – תְּנֵינָא. דִּתְנַן: מֵת הָאָב בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּפְדָּה. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁנִּפְדָּה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה.
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: When did the renter make his claim? If it was during his rental period, we already learned the halakha in this case and the Sages would not have asked about it. Similarly, if it was after his rental period, we already learned the halakha in that case as well. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 49a): A father is obligated to redeem his firstborn son after the son is thirty days old by paying five shekels to a priest. If the father died within thirty days of the birth, the son has the presumptive status of being unredeemed, until he brings a proof that he was redeemed. If he died after thirty days, the son has the presumptive status of having been redeemed, until people tell him that he was not redeemed. It is apparent from this mishna that a person is presumed not to pay money before he must, and he is presumed to have paid money once he is required to do so. This logic can be applied to the paying of a rental fee.
לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּיוֹמָא דְּמִשְׁלַם זִמְנֵיהּ. מִי עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּפָרַע בְּיוֹמָא דְּמִשְׁלַם זִמְנֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא?
The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in a case where the renter makes his claim on the day on which his rental period is completed. The dilemma is whether a person is apt to pay his debts on the very day on which the period in which to pay them is completed, or he is not.
What bothers me about this proof is that we are dealing with a newborn and pidyon haben. First, there is a ceremony, and a blessing. Maybe a feast? And it is typically performed ON that thirtieth day, because beforehand there is a possibility that it is a nefel, which would not like 30 days, in which case he would be exempt, so there should be no payment and accompanying blessing. Perhaps you can say the father was deathly ill, so mitigating that concern, he would take care of this? Maybe, but maybe this isn’t the case, but it came out of left field.
So, by pidyon haben there is a particular reason to assume that the father would not take care of the pidyon prior to the date the payment was due. The Talmudic Narrator’s suggestion, that we should extrapolate from here to the general case that people don’t pay prematurely seems more than a bit forced. (Which is why I wonder whether Rabbi Yanni / Yochanan actually subscribe to this.)