1)

TOSFOS DH HAMAKDISH SADEIHU B'SHA'AH SHE'EIN HA'YOVEL NOHEG

úåñ' ã"ä äî÷ãéù ùãäå áùòä ùàéï äéåáì ðåäâ

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and elaborates.)

ôéøåù áæîï ùàéï äéåáì ðåäâ -ãàæ äåà ðôãä áùåééå, åéù áå øéåç ìä÷ãù ìôúåç úçìä äáòìéí îôðé äçåîù.

(a)

Clarification: This speaks when the Yovel does not apply - because that is when it is redeemed for its value, and it is therefore beneficial to Hekdesh to begin with the owner, on account of the extra fifth.

àáì áæîï ùäéåáì ðåäâ, äåà ðôãä ìôé æøòå áð' ñìòéí áéú æøò çåîø ùòåøéí...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas at the time when the Yovel applies, it is redeemed according to its seeds - fifty Sela'im for each Kur of barley seeds.

åáùãä àçåæä îééøé åáæîï äáéú îééøé, ãàéëà øååçà ìä÷ãù...

(b)

Clarification: Moreover, it is speaking about a Sadeh Achuzah in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, where there is a benefit to Hekdesh ...

ãàé ùìà áæîï äáéú îçììå, àí éøöä àôé' ìëúçìä òì ùåä ôøåèä...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Because if he redeems it when the Beis-Hamikdash is not standing, he is permitted, even Lechatchilah, to redeem it for a Shaveh P'rutah (See Tosfos Yom-Tov) ...

ìôé ùàéï áå øéåç ìä÷ãù- ãìàéáåã àæéì...

2.

Reason: Since there is no benefit for Hekdesh - seeing as it goes to waste ...

ëãàéúà ì÷îï áñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó ëè.) 'ääåà ãàçøéí ìðëñéä, àúà ì÷îéä ãøá éäåãä, à"ì "ù÷åì ã' æåæé àçéì òìééäå åùãéðäå áðäøà åìéùúøé ìê" .'

(c)

Source: As the Gemara will explain later at the end of the Perek (Daf 29a) - 'When a person who declared his property Cherem came before Rav Yehudah, he told him to to take four Zuzim, to redeem his property with it and throw it in the river, at which point his property will become permitted to him.

åà"ú, äéàê ðîöà áæîï ùàéï äéåáì áæîï äáéú?

(d)

Question: How is it possible to find a time during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash where there is no Yovel?

é"ì, áæîï ùâìå éùøàì, ãáòéðï 'ëì éåùáéä òìéä.'

(e)

Answer: When Yisrael are in exile, since Yovel requires all its inhabitants living in Eretz Yisrael.

2)

TOSFOS DH AMAR REBBI YOSSI ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ø' éåñé ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Yossi's statement with the fact that he lived after the destruction of the Beis-ha'Mikdash.)

úéîä, àéê äéä æä äîòùä áéîé ø' éåñé -åäìà ø' éåñé ìà äéä áæîï äáéú, åàí ëï ìà äåöøê ìôúåç úçéìä ááòìéí?

(a)

Question: How could this have occurred in the life-time of Rebbi Yossi, seeing as he did not live during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash, in which case it would not have been necessary to open the proceedings with the owner?

åé"ì, ãôìéâ òì ôé ä÷áìä ò"ô ùàéøò áæîï äáéú.

(b)

Answer #1: He argued on the tradition that was handed down concerning this episode that took place during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash.

à"ð, àôé' ùìà áæîï äáéú, âàåìä ááòìéí úçéìä...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, even not during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash, the Din of redeeming via the owner first applies ...

ëãëúéá (åé÷øà ëæ) "àí ìà éâàì ...åðîëø ."

1.

Reason: Based on the Pasuk (in Vayikra 27) "Im Lo Yig'al ... ve'Nimkar".

3)

TOSFOS DH MAI OMRIN KOFIN

úåñ' ã"ä îàé àåîøéï ëåôéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why specifically here, the Tana Paskens 'Kofin'.)

åà"ú, î"ù ãöøéê ëôéä äëà èôé îëì äðé ãúðï áñåó ô"÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éâ.)...

(a)

Question: Why is forcing necessary here more than all the cases cited in in Mishnah at the end of the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 13a) ...

'îöåú ôãééä ÷åãîú ìîöåú òøéôä' ' ;îöåú éòéãä ÷åãîú ìîöåú ôãééä' ' ;îöåú ééáåí ÷åãîú ìîöåú çìéöä' ' ;îöåú âàåìä áàãåï ÷åãîú (ìîöåú) ìëì àãí' ...

1.

Question (cont.): 'The Mitzvah of redemption precedes that of breaking the neck (of a first-born donkey)'; 'The Mitzvah of Ye'idah (of an Amah ha'Ivriyah) precedes that of redemption'; 'The Mitzvah of Yibum precedes that of Chalitzah'; 'The Mitzvah of redeeming via the master (of a Tamei animal that he was Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis) precedes that of anybody else' ...

åîôé÷ ëåìäå î÷øàé äúí, åìà àùëçï ëôééä ëé àí áæä?

2.

Question (concl): And the Gemara there learns all the cases from Pesukim, yet we do not find forcing other than in the current case?

åé"ì, ãùàðé äëà ãéëåì ìáà ìéãé ú÷ìä, àí éäðå äòåìí îîðä.

(b)

Answer: The case here is different, since it can cause a Takalah, in the event that people derive Hana'ah from it.

4)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOSSI SAVAR BI'KEBEITZAH NAMI PARKINAN

úåñ' ã"ä øáé éåñé ñáø áëáéöä ðîé ôø÷éðï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies what 'k'Beitzah' refers to, and points out that an egg is worth a P'rutah.)

åáô' äæäá (á"î ãó ðâ:) àéëà ôìåâúà -àéëà î"ã )'áå å(áçåîùå , ' åàéëà îàï ãàîø 'áå' àò"â ùàéï áçåîùå ...

(a)

Clarification: There is a Machlokes in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 53b) - One opinion holds 'be'Chumcho', the other, 'Bo', even though there is not a fifth in the Chomesh.

åðøàä ã)ë(áéöä äééðå ùåä ôøåèä.

1.

Clarification (cont): Presumably, an egg is worth a P'rutah.

27b----------------------------------------27b

5)

TOSFOS DH L'MEIMRA D'CHOMESH ADIF U'REMINHU BA'AL-HA'BAYIS OMER B'SELA

úåñ' ã"ä ìîéîøà ãçåîù òãéó åøîéðäé áòì äáéú àåîø áñìò

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's question and answer.)

úéîä ìø' àìçðï, îàé ôøéê ...

(a)

Question: What is the Kashya, asks Rebbi Elchanan ...

ãäà ìéëà ìîéôøê - ã÷úðé ãäáòìéí àåîøéí áòùøéí åëì àãí áòùøéí, äáòìéí ÷åãîéí' ,åäëà úðéà ãàçø ÷åãí ... ?

(b)

Refuted Explanation #1: It cannot be that the Mishnah says that if both the owner and somebody else offers twenty, the owner takes preference, whereas here (the Mishnah in Ma'ser Sheini) the Tana rules that the other person comes first? ...

åîàé ÷åùéà- ãäà ãäáòìéí ÷åãîéï æäå ëùàéï àçø ôåãäå áéåúø?

1.

Refutation: Because what would be the Kashya - since the reason that the owner takes precedence is only where nobody else offers more?

åîñéôà ðîé ìéëà ìîéôøê, ãúðéà 'àçã àåîø äøé äåà ùìé áòùøéí åàçã, äáòìéí ÷åãîéï åðåúï ë"å' ,åäëà úðéà ã'àçø ÷åãí ?' ...

(c)

Refuted Explanation #2: Nor can the Kashya be from the Seifa of the Mishnah - 'If someone say I will take it for twenty-one, the owner comes first and pays twenty-six, whereas ere, the Tana rules that the other person comes first?

äëé ðîé ìà ÷ùéà -ãîéãé äåà èòîà àìà îôðé ùîåñéó òì ä÷øï ùäåà ñìò, ä"ð áîúðé' ãéï äåà ùé÷ãîå äáòìéí ùâí äí îåñéôéï òì ä÷øï ...

1.

Refutation: This too, is no Kashya - seeing as the reason (here) is only because he adds to the Keren which is a Sela (See Avodah Berurah), by the same token, the Din in our Mishnah gives precedence to the owner who also adds to the Keren ...

ëùðåúðéï òùøéí åùù, ùðåúðéï äàçã éåúø òì äòùøéí, ãçåîù áùáéì ä÷øï ùäåà òùøéí.

2.

Refutation (cont.): By giving twenty-six, one more than on the twenty, since the fifth is on account of the Keren which is twenty.

åùîà äåà î÷ùä ëê -îàé ùðà ùëåôéï äáòìéí ìúú ãîéí ùàîø äàçø åçåîùå òì îä ùàîø äåà, ã÷úðé 'ùäáòìéí ðåúðéï ë"å 'àå 'ë"æ'

(d)

Authentic Explanation (Question): Perhaps what the Gemara is asking is - Why do we force the owner to add to the offer of the other person plus a fifth, more than what he is offering, as it says 'That the owner gives twenty-six' or 'twenty-seven' ...

åäëà úðéà ëùäáòìéí àåîøéí áñìò åäàçø àåîø áñìò åàéñø, [ùì ñìò åàéñø] ÷åãí, åàéï àðå ëåôéï àú äáòìéí ùéúðå ñìò åàéñø òí äçåîù ...

1.

Authentic Explanation (Question [cont.]): When here the Tana says that when the owner offers a Sela and someone else, a Sela plus an Isar, the latter takes precedence, and we don't force the owner to give as Sela and an Isar plus a fifth ...

ã÷úðé 'ùì ñìò åàéñø ÷åãí' -åìà ÷úðé 'äáòìéí ðåúðéï çîùä ãéðøéí ùäåà ÷øï åçåîù åàéñø' ...

2.

Authentic Explanation (Question [cont.]): Seeing as it states that 'The Sela plus an Isar takes precedence' - and not that the owner must pay five Dinrim, which is the Keren plus a fifth plus an Isar.

åîùðé 'äëà çåîùà øååçà ãä÷ãù, çåîù òãéó, äìëê ëåôéï àú äáòìéí; äúí ãçåîùà øååçà ãáòì äáéú' ...

3.

Authentic Explanation (Answer [concl.]): And the Gemara answers - 'Here where the fifth is to the benefit of Hekdesh, the fifth takes precedence; therefore we force the owner, whereas there the fifth is to the benefit of the owner (i.e. Hekdesh does not benefit).

6)

TOSFOS DH TANYA BEIS SHAMAI OMRIM MOSIFIN

úåñ' ã"ä úðéà áéú ùîàé àåîøéí îåñéôéï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the two possible texts.)

ä"â -åëï ëúåá áñôø ø"ú ...

(a)

Clarifying Text: This is the correct text, and so it appears in the Seifer of Rabeinu Tam ...

åì"â 'úðéà ðîé äëé' .

1.

Clarifying Text: And not 'Tanya Nami Hachi'.

åàé âøñé' ìéä, éù ìôøùå ëï- 'úðéà ðîé äëé' ãàéëà îàï ãñáø ãîåñéôéï áðéùåí àé ëá"ù àé ëá"ä.

(b)

Reinstating refuted Text: However, if one reads the refuted text, this is how we must explain it - 'There is a Beraisa thaat supports the fact that one adds to the assessment, ,either like Beis Shamai or like Beis Hillel.

åîã÷ã÷ äù"ñ ìîöåà àìéáà ãøá çñãà.

1.

Explanation: And the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for Rav Chisda.

åîéäå ðøàä éåúø ãâøñ 'úðéà' áìà 'ðîé äëé.'

(c)

Conclusion: At the end of the day however, it is preferable to read 'Tanya' without 'Nami Hachi'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF