1)

TOSFOS DH AF-AL-PI SHE'CHALTO KOHEN OMER LO HAREI SHE'LECHA L'FANECHA

úåñ' ã"ä àò"ô ùçìèå ëäï àåîø ìå äøé ùìê ìôðéê

(Summary: Tosfos concludes his clarification of the ruling and his reconciliation of it with the Toras Kohanim.)

åëï îùîò áôø÷ îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ÷â:) 'à"ø ôôé îùîéä ãøáà [ñðãì] äîåñâø ìà úçìåõ, åàí çìöä, çìéöúä ëùøä...

(a)

Introduction to Proof: And this is also implied in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos, Daf 103b), where Rav Papi, quoting Rava rules - that a Sandal that is Musgar (the first stage of Tzara'as) may not be used for Chalitzah, but if it was, the Chalitzah is Kasher

ñðãì äîåçìè, ìà úçìåõ, åàí çìöä çìéöúä ôñåìä' ...

1.

Introduction to Proof (cont.): Whereas by a Sandal ha'Muchlat (the final stage of Tzara'as), the Chalitzah is Pasul even Bedi'eved ...

åôøù"é ùí ãñðãì äîåñâø ìà úçìåõ áå ìëúçìä îùåí âæéøä ãñðãì äîåçìè, îéäå àí çìöä, çìéöúä ëùøä îùåí ã'îöåú ìàå ìéäðåú ðéúðå' ...

2.

Proof (cont.): And Rashi explains there that one may not perform Chalitzah with a Sandal ha'Musgar due to a decree on account of a Sandal ha'Muchlat, and that it is nevertheless Kasher Bedi'eved since 'Mitzvos are not intended for our (material) benefit'.

àìîà îùîò ñðãì äîåçìè àñåø áäðàä.

(b)

Proof (concl.): So we see that a Sandal ha'Muchlat is Asur be'Hana'ah.

åö"ì, ãàéï äëé ðîé ãäåà àñåø áäðàä...

(c)

Answer: We must therefore say that it is indeed Asur be'Hana'ah ...

åäà ãàîø äëà ãàåîø ìå 'äøé ùìê ìôðéê' ...

(d)

Implied Question: And nevertheless, when the Gemara says here that he may claim 'Harei shel'cha Lefanecha' ...

äééðå ëâåï ãà"ì 'áéú æä' ,åëéåï ãäåà áòéï, àéðå çééá ìäòîéã ìå áéú àçø...

(e)

Answer: It speaks when he (the owner) initially said 'Bayis Zeh', because, seeing as it is still standing, he is under no obligation to provide him with another house ...

îéäå äåà äôñéã ùëøå...

1.

Answer (cont.): He does however, lose the rental ...

åäåé ëîå 'îúä àå ðùáøä' ãàîø äúí 'çééá ìäòîéã ìå çîåø àçø,' åôøù"é ùí àå éôñéã ùëøå.

2.

Precedent: Because it is similar to where the animal dies or broke down, about which the Gemara there rules that 'He is obligated to replace it, and Rashi adds 'or he loses the rental'.

2)

TOSFOS DH HACHI KA'AMAR HIKDISHO MAKIR HADAR BO MA'ALEH S'CHAR L'HEKDESH

úåñ' ã"ä äëé ÷àîø ä÷ãéùå îùëéø äãø áå îòìä ùëø ìä÷ãù

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya and the Sugya in Eizehu Neshech with the Sugya in Kesuvos and elaborates.)

úéîä, ãäëà îùîò ãîùëéø éëåì ìä÷ãéù áéúå àçø ùäùëéøå, àò"â ãîùúòáã ìùåëø ...

(a)

Question #1: Here it implies that a Maskir is permitted to declare his house Hekdesh after he has rented it out, even though it is Meshubad to the hirer ...

åáëúåáåú ô' àó ò"ô (ãó ðè: åùí) àîø 'äà ìà ãîéà àìà ìàåîø "ùãä æå ùîùëðúé ìê ìëùàôãðä ú÷ãåù" ,ã÷ãùä' ...

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos, Daf 59b & 60a) the Gemara states that ' ... This can only be compared to someone who says 'This field which I gave you as a Mashkon will become Hekdesh when I redeem it", in which case it is Kadosh' ...

îùîò ãåå÷à îùåí ã÷àîø 'ìëùàôãðä' ,àáì ìàìúø, ìà îöé î÷ãéù ìä...

2.

Question #1 (concl.): Implying that it is only because he added 'When I redeem it that it is Hekdesh, but that immediately, he cannot declare it Hekdesh ...

äëà ðîé ìà îöé î÷ãéù ìéä?

3.

Question #1 (concl.): Here too, he should not be able to declare it Hekdesh?

åáô' àéæäå ðùê (á"î òâ: åùí) àîøéðï 'øá îøé áø øçì îùëï ìéä ääåà òåáã ëåëáéí áéúà, àæì æáðéä ìøáà; ðèø ùúà åù÷ì àâø áéúà, àîèé ìéä ìøáà...

(b)

Introduction to Question #2: And in Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 73b & 74a) - 'A Nochri sold the house that he had given Rav Mari bar Rachel as a Mashkon to Rava. The latter waited a year and brought the rental for the house to Rava ...

à"ì 'äàé ãìà àîèàé àâø áéúà òã äàéãðà îùåí ãäåä îùëðúà, åìà äåä îöé òåáã ëåëáéí îñì÷ ìé; äùúà ðéù÷éì [îø] àâø áéúà' ...

1.

Introduction to Question #2 (cont.): With the words 'I did not bring you the rental until now, because it was a Mashkon and the Nochri was not permitted to push me away; Now accept the rental (for the forthcoming year' ...

îùîò ãéëåì äìåä ìîëåø, åà"ë àîàé àéðå éëåì ìä÷ãéù îéã?

2.

Question #2: Implying that the borrower (the Nochri) is permitted to sell it; so why is he not permitted to declare it Hekdesh immediately?

åàåø"é, ãëï äãéï äîåúø éåúø îëðâã îòåúéå, äåà éëåì ìä÷ãéù åìîëåø îéã...

(c)

Answer #1: The Ri answers the Din is that whatever is in excess of the loan he is allowed to declare Hekdesh and to sell immediately ...

åäà ãàîø äúí 'ìëùàôãðä' ,ãîùîò àáì äùúà àéðå éëåì ìä÷ãéù, äééðå ëùäåà øåöä ìä÷ãéù äëì, åääéà ãàéæäå ðùê (ùí) æáéï ìå äîåúø...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, when it says there 'When I redeem it', implying that straightaway he cannot declare it Hekdesh, it speaks where he wants to be Makdish the entire property ...Whereas the case in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Ibid.) is speaking where he sold Rava the excess,

åäëà éëåì ìä÷ãéù äîåúø

2.

Answer #1 (concl.): And here too, he has the right to be Makdish the excess ...

åäà ãàîø 'äãø áå, îòìä ùëø ìä÷ãù' ...

(d)

Implied Question: And the reason that he obligates the one who lives there to pay Hekdesh rent is ...

äééðå îùåí ãéù ìå ìä÷ãù ùåúôåú òîå, åàéï ëì àçã éëåì ìáøø çì÷å.

1.

Answer: Because Hekdesh shares the property with him, and it is impossible to clarify who owns what.

åéù îçì÷éï áéï îùëéø ììåä- ããå÷à ìåä ùìà úçæåø àìéå òåã áìà ôøòåï îòåú, ääåà åãàé ìà îöé ìä÷ãéù, àáì îùëéø - ùìàçø äùìîú æîï äùëéøåú úçæåø ìå áçðí, éëåì äåà ìä÷ãéù.

(e)

Answer #2: Some commentaries draw a distinction between a Maskir and a borrower , inasmuch as specifically a borrower - who will not get the Mashkon back unless he repays the loan cannot declare it Hekdesh, whereas a Maskir - who after the rental period has expired, gets it back free of charge, is permitted to declare it Hekdesh.

îéäå ääéà ã'àéæäå ðùê' ìà îéúøöà áäëé.

1.

Reservation: This does not however, answer the Kashya on Eizehu Neshech (seeing as the Nochri there was a borrower).

îéäå úéîä, ãàùëçï áòìîà 'ä÷ãéù ìåä' 'åæáéï ìåä' -îùîò ãîöé î÷ãéùå åîæáéï?

(f)

Question: We find in various places, that the Gemara mentions that the borrower was Makdish the Mashkon or that 'he sold it - implying that he has the right to do so (See Avodah Berurah)?

îéäå á"ç îåöéàå îéã ää÷ãù åîéã äìå÷ç ëùéøöä ìâáåú çåáå, àí àéï ìå ìâáåú îî÷åí àçø...

(g)

Answer: The creditor however, may claim it from Hekdesh or from thr purchaser when he comes to claim his debt, assuming that there is nowhere else to claim from (See Avodah Berurah).

îéãé ãäåä à'òùä òáãå àôåúé÷é, îëøå àå ä÷ãéùå- ãá"ç îåöéà äéîðå; îéäå ëì æîï ùìà âáàå äåà ÷ãåù åîëåø.

1.

Precedent: It is similar to 'Someone who designated his Eved as an Apotiki and sold him or declared him Hekdesh - that the creditor can claim him; only as long as he does not claim him, he is Hekdesh or sold.

åäëà îùîò ãîùëéø éëåì ìä÷ãéù, åä"ä ãéëåì ìàñåø òì äùåëø, åëï äìëä.

(h)

Answer (cont.): It is also (See Avodah Berurah) implied here that the owner can declare it Hekdesh, and by the same token he is able to render it Asur on the hirer, and this is the Halachah.

îéäå ÷ùä ,ãäëà îùîò ãàéï äùåëø éëåì ìä÷ãéù îãôøéê 'äãø áå äéëé îöé î÷ãéù ìéä...

(i)

Introduction to Question: Here it implies that the hirer is not permitted to declare it Hekdesh, seeing as it asks 'How can the one who lives in the house be Makdish it ...

"àéù ëé é÷ãéù àú áéúå" àîø øçîðà, îä áéúå áøùåúå, àó ëì áøùåúå ... ' ...

1.

Reason Introduction to Question: When the Torah writes "A man who is Makdish his house" - 'just as his house is in his domain, so too, whatever is in his domain ... ' ...

åáúåñôúà úðéà 'àí ä÷ãéùå ùåëø, î÷åãùú' ?

2.

Question: Whereas the Tosefta learns rules that 'If the hirer declares it Hekdesh, the Hekdesh takes effect'?

åéù ìåîø, äëà ðîé äùåëø îöé î÷ãéù ìéä ëì æîï ùäåà áøùåúå, åä"ä ãîöé àñø ìéä ìëåìé òìîà ëì éîé ùëéøåúå...

(j)

Answer: Here too, the hirer is permitted to declare it Hekdesh as long as it is in his domain; so too is he able to render it forbidden on everybody for the duration of the rental ...

åäà ãôøéê äëà 'äéëé îöé î÷ãéù ìéä? (åäàé) ...

(k)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'How can he be Makdish it?' ...

[à'äàé] ã÷àîø 'îòìä ùëø ìä÷ãù' (äëà) ôøéê- åäëé [ôøéê] äéëé îöé î÷ãéù ìòðéï ãîòìä ùëø, äà àéðå áøùåúå?

1.

Answer: It means to ask how he can he do so to the extent that he pays rental to Hekdesh (and not to the Maskir) - seeing as it is not in his domain?

îéäå úéîä, ãäëà îùîò ãîùëéø îöé î÷ãéù ìéä, åáúåñôúà úðéà ã'àéðä î÷åãùú' ... ?

(l)

Question: Here it implies that the Maskir is permitted to declare it Hekdesh, whilst the Tosefta specifically states that it is not Mekudeshes'? ...

åæä ìùåï úåñôúà 'äùåëø ùãä îçáéøå åòîã äùåëø åäùëéøä ìàçø- øùàé áòì äáéú ùéàîø ìå "àéï ìé çùáåï òí ëì àãí àìà òîê" ...

1.

Tosefta: 'If someone who hires a field from his friend, and rents it out to a third party, the owner can say to him "I won't have dealings with anyone else but you" ...

òîã áòì äáéú åîëøä- îçùáéï òí áòì äáéú; òîã áòì äáéú åä÷ãéùä -àéðä î÷åãùú òã ùúçæåø ìøùåúå ...

2.

Tosefta: Should the owner get up and sell it - they (the hirer and the purchaser) only reckon with the owner (See Avodah Berurah) - and if he declares it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh until it is returned to him.

àáì îä ùðäðä îîðå, äøé æä î÷åãùú.

3.

Tosefta: But whatever he benefits from it, is Hekdesh (i.e. he must pay Hekdesh).

òîã äùåëø åä÷ãéùä, äøé æä î÷åãùú òã ùúöà îøùåúå, åîòìä ùëø ìä÷ãù' -òã ëàï ìùåï äúåñôúà

4.

Tosefta: If the hirer is Makdish it, it is Hekdesh until it leaves his domain, and he must pay Hekdesh the rental (until here is the wording of the Tosefta).

åé"ì, ãäà ãúðéà áúåñôúà ãàéï äîùëéø éëåì ìä÷ãéù, äééðå ëùä÷ãéí ìå ùëøå, åäëà îééøé áùìà ä÷ãéí ùëøå.

(m)

Answer: When the Tosefta rules that the Maskir cannot be Makdish it, it speaks where the hirer already paid the rental up front; whereas here it is speaking where he has not yet paid.

åä"ð àéúà áéøåùìîé ãî÷åí ùðäâå- 'äîùëéø áéú ìçáéøå åòîã åä÷ãéù, äøé æå î÷åãùú; àéîúé áæîï ùìà ä÷ãéí ìå ùëøå, àáì ä÷ãéí ìå ùëøå, äøé æä ãø áå çðí .'

(n)

Support: And so it says in the Yerushalmi (Pesachim, Perek 4) 'Someone who rents a house to his friend, and then declares it Hekdesh, the Hekdesh is effective - provided the hirer has not yet paid the rental; but if he has, he may live in the house free of charge'.

3)

TOSFOS DH HACHII GARSINAN

úåñ' ã"ä äëé âøñéðï ëéåï ãîòì ðôé÷ ìéä ùëø ìçåìéï

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation and elaborates.)

åëï äåà áøåá ñôøéí ...

(a)

Text: The is the text in the majority of Sefarim.

åä"ô 'ëéåï ãîòì .. - 'ëìåîø ùëø äáéú ðôé÷ ìçåìéï ...

(b)

Authentic Explanation: And it means 'Since he is Mo'el' - the rental for the house goes out to Chulin ...

ùäøé çáéøå äùëéø àú äáéú åäåà ìà éãò, åîòì ëùãø áå, åðôé÷ ìéä äùëø áúåøú îòéìä .

1.

Reason: Since his friend rented him the house without knowing (that it is Hekdesh), he is Mo'el when he lives in it, and the rental goes out to Chulin via Me'ilah.

àáì àéï ìôøù ëéåï ùîòì ðôé÷ äáéú ìçåìéï, åëôøù"é.

(c)

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that, seeing as he is Mo'el, the house goes out to Chulin, like Rashi does.

å÷ùä îääéà ãúðéà áúåñôúà ãîòéìä (ô"á) 'á÷ò á÷øãåí ùì ä÷ãù, åáà çáéøå åá÷ò áå åáà çáéøå åá÷ò áå, ëåìí îòìå' ...

(d)

Authentic Explanation (cont.): There is now a Kashya from the Tosefta in Me'ilah (Perek 2) - 'If one chopped with an axe belonging to Hekdesh, and his friend then comes and chops with it, and his friend ... , they are all Mo'el' ...

åáùéìäé ôø÷ äðäðä (îòéìä éè:) úðï 'àéï îåòì àçø îåòì á÷ãùéí àìà ááäîä åëìé ùøú' ...

1.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And in Perek ha'Neheneh (Me'ilah, Daf 19b) the Mishnah rules that 'There is no Mo'el achar Mo'el by Kodshim except for by animals and K'lei Shareis ...

äééðå ã÷ãåùú äâåó ìà îúçìì ò"é îòéìä ëîå ÷ãåùú ãîéí ...

2.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): Meaning that Kedushas ha'Guf does not go out to Chulin via Me'ilah like Kedushas Damim ...

å÷øãåí ìàå äééðå ëìé ùøú àìà ÷ãåùú ãîéí äåà

3.

Authentic Explanation (concl.): And an axe is not considered a K'li Shareis but Kedushas ha'Guf ...

åìà éçùá ëëìé ùøú -îèòí ùîáéà àçøéí ìéãé ÷ãåùú äâåó, äåà òöîå ìà ëì ùëï ùéáà ìéãé ÷ãåùú äâåó.

(e)

Reason: The reason that it is not considered a K'li Shareis due to the fact that if it brings others to Kedushas ha'Guf, how much more so should it bring itself to Kedushas ha'Guf (See Avodah Berurah).

ãîäàé èòîà çùáéðï ùàø ëìé ùøú ÷ãåùú äâåó.

1.

Reason (cont.): Because that is the reason that other K'lei Shareis are considered Kedushas ha'Guf.

4)

TOSFOS DH KI DAYAR BEIH BI'ME'ILAH KA'I

úåñ' ã"ä äéëé ãééø áå áîòéìä ÷àé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Kashya and reconciles it with the Gemar.)a in Me'ilah

åàò"ô ùìà ôâí, îòì ...

(a)

Clarification: Even though he did not spoil it, he is Mo'el ...

ëãúðï [ø"ô äðäðä] (ãó éç.) 'äðäðä îï ää÷ãù ù"ô, àò"ô ùìà ôâí, îòì' .

1.

Source: As the Mishnah states at the beginning of Perek ha'Neheneh (Daf 18a) 'ha'Neheneh min ha'Hekdesh, Shaveh P'rutah, Af-al-Pi she'Lo Pagam, Ma'al'.

åàò"â ã'àéï îåòìéï áîçåáø ì÷ø÷ò' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even though 'What is attached to the ground is not subject to Me'ilah' ...

ëãàéúà áîñ' îòéìä ôø÷ äðäðä îï ää÷ãù (ùí:) ...

1.

Source: As the Gemara states in Perek ha'Neheneh min ha'Hekdesh (Ibid. Amud Beis) ...

ö"ì äê ñåâéà ãäëà àúéà ëøá ãàîø 'úìùå åìáñåó çáøå äåé úìåù' ...

(c)

Answer: We will have to say that this Sugya goes according to Rav, who holds that 'What is initially detached and is subsequently attached is considered detached' ...

ëãàîø 'äîùúçåä ìáéú àñøå' .

1.

Source: As he says (in Me'ilah 20a) 'Someone who prostrates himself to a house renders it forbidden'.

åáôø÷ äðäðä (ãó ë. åùí) ðîé îééúé ìä ìääéà ãøá ãàîø äúí 'åëéåï ãáðé ìäå îéäà îòì - ìéîà îñééò ìéä ìøá'?

(d)

Support: And in Perek ha'Neheneh too, (Daf 20a & 20b) the Gemara cites the Din of Rav, when it says 'When he builds them however, he is Mo'el, and suggests that it is a support for Rav?'

åàò"â ããçé ,ãçåéà áòìîà äåà.

(e)

Conclusion: And even though the Gemara pushes it off, it is merely a Dichuy.

21b----------------------------------------21b

5)

TOSFOS DH AMAR L'CHA SHMUEL KI TANYA HA'HI B'SHA'AS KAPARAH

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ìê ùîåàì ëé úðéà ääéà áùòú ëôøä

(Summary: Tosfos rejects a suggested answer.)

(åáøééúà îééøé áùòú äôøùä) åà"ú, îðìï ìäàé îúøõ ãôìéâ ùîåàì à'ãòåìà ?ìå÷îà ìîéìúéä ãùîåàì áùòú ëôøä, åáøééú' îééøé áùòú äôøùä, åìà ôìéâ à'ãòåìà?

(a)

Question: How does the Metaretz know that Shmuel argues with Ula? Why does he not establish Shmuel at the time of Kaparah, and the Beraisa speaks at the time of Hafrashah (separation), in which case he will not argue with Ula?

åé"ì, ãñáéøà ìéä ãùîåàì îééøé áùòú äôøùä ...

(b)

Answer: He holds that Shmuel is speaking at the time of Hafrashah ...

ã÷àé à'îúðé' ãîùîò ãîééøé áùòú äôøùä ...

(c)

Reason: Because he is referring to the Mishnah, which is speaking about the time of Hafrashah ...

îã÷àîø 'çééáé òåìåú àéï îîùëðéï àåúï- ' ùæäå áùòú äôøùä.

1.

Proof: Since the Tana says 'Chayvei Olos Ein Memashk'nin Osan' - which refers to the time of the Hafrashah.

6)

TOSFOS DH MAI B'SHA'AS HAFRASHAH D'KA'AMAR SHMUEL AF B'SHA'AS HAFRASHAH

úåñ' ã"ä îàé áùòú äôøùä ã÷àîø ùîåàì àó áùòú äôøùä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the opinions of Shmuel and Ula.)

åà"ú, î"î äà ôìéâ, ãìùîåàì öøéëä ãòú àó áùòú äôøùä, åë"ù áùòú ëôøä, åìòåìà öøéëä áùòú ëôøä ãåå÷à åìà áùòú äôøùä?

(a)

Question: He nevertheless argues, seeing as according to him, it requires knowledge even at the time of Hafrashah, and all the more ar the time of Kaparah, whereas accorcing to Ula, it only needs knowledge at the time of Kaparah, but not at the time of Hafrashah?

åé"ì, ãî"î ãáëä"â ãôìéâé äùúà ìà äåå ôìéâé.

(b)

Answer: Nonetheless, in the manner that they are currently arguing (i.e. at the time of Kaparah) they would no longer argue.

åðøàä ìø"é èòîà ãùîåàì åòåìà ãäà ãàîø ùîåàì 'òåìä åùìîéí öøéëéï ãòú áùòú äôøùä' -îùåí ãìà ðéçà ìéä ìàéðéù ìäúëôø áîéìúà ãìà ãéãéä...

(c)

Clarification (Shmuel): The Ri explains the reasoning of Shmuel and Ula as follows: That Shmuel holds that Olah ans Shelamim require knowledge at the time of Hafrashah - because a person doesn't like to be 'atoned for' with something that is not his ...

àáì áùòú ëôøä àéðå öøéê, ãîùåí ñîéëä àéï öøéê ìãòúå ,ëéåï ãàéðí áàéí ìëôø òì çèàå...

1.

Clarification (Shmuel [cont.]): But it is not necessary at the time of Kaparah, since Semichah need not be performed with his knowledge, seeing as they do not come to atone for his sin (Refer to Gilyon) ...

àáì çèàú åàùí, ùäí áàéí òì çèà -åöøéëéï ìäúååãåú [áùòú] ñîéëä, áòéðï [ãòú] áùòú ëôøä.

2.

Clarification (Shmuel [concl.]): Whereas Chatas and Asham, which do - and which need his confession whilst Semichah is being performed, require his knowledge at the time of Kaparah.

åòåìà ñáéøà ìéä ãàôéìå áòåìä åùìîéí øåöä ì÷ééí îöåú ñîéëä; äìëê áòéðï ãòúå áùòú ëôøä...

(d)

Clarification (Ula): Ula, on the other hand, holds that even by Olah and Shelamim, he wants to fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah; Consequently, his knowledge is required even at the time of Kaparah ...

àáì áùòú äôøùä ìà áòéðï ãòú àìà áçèàú- îùåí ãìà ðéçà ìéä ìàéðù ìëôøä áîéìúà ãìàå ãéãéä ...

1.

Clarification (Ula [cont.]): But at the time of Hafrashah, it is only by a Chatas (and Asham) that his knowledge is required - since a person does not like being atoned for with something that is not his ...

àáì òåìä åùìîéí ãìà ìëôøä ÷àúé ëåìé äàé, àéðå öøéê ãòú áùòú äôøùä, å÷ãåùéí äí.

2.

Clarification (Ula [concl.]): Whereas Olah and Shelamim, which do not come to atone to the same extent (See Avodah Berurah), do not need his knowledge at the time of Hafrashah, and they are nevertheless Kadosh.

7)

TOSFOS DH HAI MA'AN D'MASAR MODA'A A'GITA MODA'EIH MODA'AH

úåñ' ã"ä äàé îàï ãîñø îåãòà àâéèà îåãòéä îåãòà

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Halachah that results from this ruling.)

(ôñ÷) ìôéëê ðäâå äòåìí ìáèì ëì îåãòé, åîåãòé ãàúå îâå îåãòé áùòú ëúéáú äâè åáùòú äðúéðä...

(a)

Halachah: Consequently, it is customary to negate (See Avodah Berurah) all declarations and declarations of declarations at the time of the writing of the Get and at the time that it is handed over ...

ãçééùéðï ùîà áèì àåúå.

1.

Reason: For fear that he may have cancelled it (the Get).

8)

TOSFOS DH SHUM HA'YESOMIM SHELOSHIM YOM

úåñ' ã"ä ùåí äéúåîéí ì' éåí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana specifies 'Yesomim'.)

åà"ú, àîàé ð÷è éúåîéí, àôé' ë"ò ðîé, àí áàå áéú ãéï ìéøã áðëñéäï ëãé ìôøåò ìàùä ëúåáúä àå çåáå ìá"ç, öøéê ùåîú á"ã ì' éåí? ...

(a)

Question: Why does he mention Yesomim, when, anyone whose property Beis-Din come to claim in order to pay a woman's Kesubah or a creditor his debt, requires the assessment of Beis-Din for thirty days? ...

ëãàéúà áô' äîô÷éã (á"î ìä:) 'îàéîú àëéì ôéøé? îëé ùìîé éåîé àëøæúà' ...

1.

Source: As the Gemara states in Perek ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 35b) 'From when can he (the creditor) eat the fruit? From when the days of announcing have terminated'

àìîà ìëì àãí ùáà ìéøã ìðëñéäï öøéëé ùåîú á"ã... ?

2.

Source (cont.): So we see that anybody whose property Beis-Din come to claim require their assessment?

à"ë, àîàé ð÷è éúåîéí?

(b)

Question (cont.): In that case, why mention Yesomim?

åé"ì, ãúðà éúåîéí ìøáåúà -ãîäå ãúéîà ãìéäåé éúåîéí ëä÷ãù åìáòé ùåîú áéú ãéï ñ' éåí...

(c)

Answer: The Tana mentions Yesomim to teach us a Chidush - because we would otherwise have thought that Yesomim are like Hekdesh, and that they therefore require an assessment by Beis-Din of sixty days ..

÷î"ì ãùåéï ìëì àãí.

1.

Answer (cont.): So it teaches us that they are like everybody else.

9)

TOSFOS DH B'SHA'AS HOTZA'AS PO'ALIM U'V'SHA'AS HACHNASAS PO'ALIM

úåñ' ã"ä áùòú äåöàú ôåòìéí åáùòú äëðñú ôåòìéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and refutes Rashi's explanation.)

ôéøåù áùòú äåöàú ôåòìéí îîìàëúï åáùòú äëðñúï ìîìàëä.

(a)

Clarification: This means when the workers leave work and when they go out to work , respectively.

åàéï æå ñãø äîùðä ãð÷è 'áá÷ø åáòøá' -åøá éäåãä îôøù 'òøá' úçéìä åàçø ëê 'á÷ø' .

(b)

Implied Question: This is not the order of the Mishnah, which says 'in the morning and in the evening - since Rav first explains 'the evening' and then 'the morning' ...

åé"ì, îùåí ãëï äñãø ...

(c)

Answer: This is because that is the actual order of things ...

ìôé ùàéðå øåöä ìáèì îîìàëúå, ìôéëê àéï ãøê ìîéîø ìäå 'ñééøåä ðéäìé' àìà áòøá ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as, since he (the employer) does not want to stop them from working, he will not ask them to check out the field until the evening ...

ãàí ìà ëï, ìîä ìäîúéï òã äòøá åðùàìéä ìäå îä øàå -äà ëì äéåí éù ìå øùåú ìùéåìéä...

2.

proof: Otherwise, why wait until the evening to ask them what they saw - when he is able to ask them throughout the day?

ìôéëê äåöøëå ìøá éäåãä ìôøù ëï ùáùòú éöéàä îîìàëúï àîø ìäå 'ñééøåä ðéäìé' ,ùàæ àéï îáèìéï îîìàëúí...

(d)

Answer (cont.): Therefore, Rav Yehudah finds it necessary to explain that it is when they leave work that he instructs them to check it out, because then he does not stop them from working ...

åìîçøú ëùðæëø îä ãàîø ìäå ìàåøúà, àæéì ìùàåì.

1.

Answer (concl.): And the following morning, when he remembers his instructions of the previous evening, he asks them (what they saw).

åîù"ä àéï ìôøù àéôëà ' -áùòú äåöàú äôåòìéí' -îáéúí åðëðñéï áîìàëúï; å'áùòú äëðñúï' -ááéúí ,åéåöàéï îîìàëúï...

(e)

Refuted Explanation: And that explains why we cannot explain the other way round - 'be'Sha'as Hotza'as ha'Po'alim' - from their houses on their way to work; and 'be'Sha'as Hachnasan' - when they arrive home after they have left work ...

ìôé ãàéï ãøê ìòùåú ëï, ëãôéøùðå.

(f)

Refutation #1: Because it is not the way it is done, as Tosfos explains.

åòåã, ãàéï ìééùá ìùåï äñôø òì æä.

(g)

Refutation #2: Moreover, it does not go with the Lashon (See Avodah Berurah).

áúåñôåú äàøéëå äøáä áæä, åäáéàå ääéà ãøéù äùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á"î ôâ. åùí:) 'øéù ì÷éù àîø "ôåòì áëðéñúå îùìå åáéöéàúå îùì áòì äáéú .' "

(h)

Gilyon (See Shitah Mekubetzes 16): Tosfos is very lengthy on this point, and they cite the Gemara at the beginning of ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 83a & 83b), where Resh Lakish says that 'A worker goes to work in his time, and leaves in the time of his employer' (See Avodah Berurah).

10)

TOSFOS DH KACH HI YAFEH

úåñ' ã"ä ëê äéà éôä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and qualifies it.)

ìäåöàú úáåàä åôéøåú ëê åëê äéà ùåîà áëê åëê ãîéí.

(a)

Clarification: How much produce and fruit it produces annually and how much it is worth.

åàí äîìåä øåöä ìòëá áëê ùùîå á"ã, àéï öøéê ìäëøéæ, àìà àå÷éîðà ìéä áéã äîìåä îéã.

(b)

Qualification: If however, the creditor is willing to settle for the Beis-Din's assessment, it is no longer necessary to announce it, and one gives it to him immediately.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF