1)

TOSFOS DH HA DE'MASIK BEIH SHI'UR AR'A U'SHEVACHA

úåñ' ã"ä äà ãîéñ÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà

(Summary: Tosfos explains the answer and elaborates.)

ôéøåù, äà ã÷àîø ùîåàì 'á"ç âåáä àú äùáç' ...

(a)

Clarification: This refers to Shmuel's statement 'Ba'al-Chov Govah es ha'Shevach' ...

ãëéåï ãîñé÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà, âåáä àú äùáç áçðí îï äì÷åçåú.

1.

Reason: ... because, since he owes him the land plus the Sh'vach, he can claim the Sh'vach for nothing from the purchasers.

åðøàä ãâí îéúîé âáé á"ç äùáç áçðí, åàéï ðåúï ãîéí, ëîå îï äì÷åçåú...

(b)

Extention: And it would seem that the creditor can also claim the Sh'vach free of charge from Yesomim, without having to pay money, as he does from the purchasers ...

åàò"â ãàéï ìäí òì îé ìçæåø, åäåé ëîå îúðä, ãìà âáé îéðä á"ç ùáçà, ëãîùîò áô"÷ ãá"î (ãó èå. åùí ã"ä á"ç)...

(c)

Implied Question: Even though they have nobody to reclaim it from, similar to a gift, from which the creditor cannot claim the Sh'vach, as is implied in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 115a, See Tosfos there DH 'Ba'al-Chov') ...

ããå÷à îì÷åçåú âåáä, ìôé ùëúá ìå îåëø ììå÷ç 'àðà àé÷åí åàùôé åàãëé åàîøé÷ æáéðé àìéï, àéðåï åòîìéäåï åùáçéäåï... '

1.

Implied Question (cont.): ... because it is specifically from the purchasers that he can claim, since the seller writes for the purchaser that he will reimburse him should the Ba'al-Chov claim it from him ...

àáì îúðä, ãìà ëúá ìéä äëé åàéï ìå òì îé ìçæåø, ìà...

2.

Implied Question (concl.): But that is not the case by a Matanah, where the benefactor does not write this, and where the recipient has therefore nobody to turn to reimburse him ...

îëì î÷åí âåáä îï äéúåîéí îùåí ã'ëøòéä ãàáåäåï ðéðäå... '

(d)

Answer: Nevertheless, he can claim from the Yesomim, on account of the principle 'A son is the leg (the extention) of his father'.

ëãîåëç áôø÷ éù áëåø (áëåøåú ãó ðá.) ãúðï 'àéï äáëåø ðåèì áøàåé åìà áùáç, åìà äàùä áëúåáúä åìà äáðåú áîæåðåúéäí' .

1.

Source: ... as is evident in Perek Yesh B'chor (Bechoros, Daf 52a) where the Mishnah states that a B'chor does not take Ra'uy (what his father did not actually possess) or the Sh'vach, nor does a woman take them for her Kesubah or daughters for their sustenance.

åôøéê áâîøà åäàîø ùîåàì 'á"ç âåáä àú äùáç? 'åîùðé 'î÷åìé ëúåáä ùðå ëàï' ;åîæåðåú áðåú ðîé úðàé ëúåáä ëëúåáä ãîé...

2.

Source (cont.): And in answer to the question from Shmuel, who said that a Ba'al-Chov claims the Sh'vach, the Gemara replies that the Tana is teaching here some of the leniencies of Kesubah'; and the sustenance of daughters is also a T'nai Kesubah (a condition of the Kesubah) ...

åäúí îùáç éúåîéí îééøé...

3.

Source (cont.): ... and the Tana there is speaking about the Sh'vach of the Yesomim' ...

ãàé îùáç ì÷åçåú, à"ë, îàé àéøéà ãìà èøôé áðåú îùáç? åäà îâåó ä÷ø÷ò ðîé ìà èøôé, ã'àéï îåöéàéï ìîæåï äàùä åäáðåú îðëñéí îùåòáãéí' ?

4.

Proof: ... because, if it was the Sh'vach of the Lekuchos, why does he say that the daughters do not claim from the Sh'vach? Seeing as it is based on the Halachah that one cannot extract the sustenance of a wife or of a daughter from property that is Meshubad (from the purchaser), they cannot claim from the actual land either?

àìà áùáç éúåîéí îééøé, åãå÷à ëúåáú àùä åîæåðåú ã÷éìé ìà âáé îùáç, àáì ùàø á"ç âáé.

5.

Source (concl.): It must therefore be speaking about the Sh'vach of the Yesomim, and it is specifically the Kesubah of a woman and her Mezonos, which are lenient, that one cannot claim from the Sh'vach, but other creditors can.

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù äúí 'îæåï äáðåú' -ëâåï 'ðùà àùä åôñ÷ ìæåï áúä ä' ùðéí ... '

(e)

Introduction to Refutation: Rashi there, defines 'Mazon ha'Banos' as a woman who marries, and whose husband undertakes to feed her daughter for five years.

åìôéøåùå àéï øàéä, ãîöé îééøé ùôéø áùáç ì÷åçåú.

1.

Refutation: According to his explanation, the proof falls away, since it can well be speaking about the Sh'vach of Lekuchos.

àáì ìà ðäéøà, ãà"ë ä"ì ìîéúðé 'åìà áú àùúå ìîæåðåú? '

(f)

Rejection of Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because if so, the Tana ought to have said 'And not his wife's daughter (rather than 'daughters') for Mezonos'.

åòåã, ãìà ùééê áä úðàé ëúåáä?

1.

Rejection of Refutation #2: Moreover, 'T'nai Kesubah' is not applicable to her?

åäà ãàîø áäî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷é.) 'éúåîéí àåîøéí "àðå äùáçðå, åàéï äùáç ùìê" - ' ...îùîò ãìà âáé îùáç éúåîéí?

(g)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a (Daf 110a) speaks about Yesomim who claim that they improved the land and that the claimant is not entitled to the Sh'vach, implying that one cannot claim from the Sh'vach of Yesomim ...

äúí îééøé áùòùä àôåúé÷é åàîøé 'àðå äùáçðå, åúï ìðå éöéàä' , ëãéï "äéåøã ìúåê ùãä çáéøå ùìà áøùåú" ...

(h)

Answer: ... that speaks where he designated the field as an Apotiki (a security) , and where they claim 'We improved it, so reimburse our expenses', like the Din regarding someone who goes into his friend's field without permission ... '.

åëï îå÷é ìä áîñ÷ðà á'òùàå àôåúé÷é' ...

1.

Proof #1: And also in the Maskana, the Gemara establishes it where he designated it as an Apotiki.

åâí áúçéìä îùîò ãîééøé áòùàå àôåúé÷é -ã÷àîø 'òì äéúåîéí ìäáéà øàéä; î"è? àøòà ëéåï ãìâåáééðà ÷ééîà, ëîàï ãâáéà ãîéà' ...

(i)

Proof #2: In fact, also the beginning of the Sugya implies that he designated it as an Apotiki - since it states that it is up to the Yesomim to bring a proof; Why is that? Because, since the land stands to be claimed, it is as if it has already been claimed' ...

åàé ìà îééøé ãùåéä àôåúé÷é, àîàé äåéà áçæ÷ú á"ç, åéúîé ðééúå øàéä? àãøáä, àøòà áçæ÷ú éúîé ÷ééîà, ãàé áòé îñì÷é ìéä áæåæé, åòì á"ç ìäáéà øàéä?

1.

Proof #2 (cont.): ... Now if it was speaking where he made it an Apotiki, on what grounds is it in the Chazakah of the Ba'al-Chov, requiring the Yesomim to bring proof? On the contrary, the land is in the Chazakah of the Yesomim, seeing as should they so wish, they have the right to pay off the Ba'al-Chov with money, and the onus to bring a proof ought to lie with the Ba'al-Chov?

àìà åãàé áòùàåäå àôåúé÷é àééøé...

2.

Proof #2 (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where the borrower designated it an Apotiki ...

åâøò ëçå ùì áòì çåá èôé áîä ùòùä ìå äìåä àôåúé÷é, ãäåéà ëàçú îùãåúéå, ãîùìí éöéàä ìîé ùîùáéç...

3.

Proof #2 (cont.): ... and the power of the Ba'al-Chov is actually weakened by the fact that he did, since it is now considered one of his (the Ba'al-Chov's) fields, in which case he is obligated to reimburse the one who improved it ...

åàéìå ìà òùàå àôåúé÷é, äéä âåáä äëì îï äéúåîéí áìà ôøéòú éöéàä ëîå îì÷åçåú, ëãôéøùúé.

4.

Proof #2 (concl.): Had he not made it an Apotiki, the Ba'al-Chov would have been able to claim everything from the Yesomim without having to reimburse the Yesomim their expenses, just like he would from the Lekuchos, as Tosfos explained.

åäùúà îöéðå ìîéîø ãáì÷åçåú ðîé, àí òùàä àôåúé÷é, éù ìå ìùìí ììå÷ç äéöéàä -àôé' îñé÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà...

(j)

Clarification: We can now say that by Lekuchos too, where he designated it as an Apotiki, the Ba'al-Chov is obligated to pay the Loke'ach his expenses - even if he lent the borrower the amount equivalent to the land plus the Sh'vach ...

åìîñ÷ðà ãîå÷é ìä äëà áòùàä àôåúé÷é, ìà ðçì÷ òåã áéï îñé÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà ììà îñé÷...

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... because according to the Maskana - that he made it an Apotiki - we will no longer draw a distinction between where the debt was equal to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach and where it wasn't.

åáèì áîñ÷ðà àåúå çéìå÷, ãëéåï ùòùàå àôåúé÷é, îùìí éöéàä, àò"â ãîñé÷ ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà.

2.

Clarification (concl.): ... since that distinction is negated in the Maskana, because, since he designated it as an Apotiki, he pays him his expenses, even though the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach.

åîéäå éù ìçì÷ -ãáì÷åçåú ëéåï ùéù ìäí òì îé ìçæåø, äéëà ãîñé÷ ùéòåø àøòà åùáçà, àéðå ôåøò éöéàä àôé' òùàä àôåúé÷é...

(k)

Retraction: It is possible, however, to differentiate and to say that by the Lekuchos, since they have someone to whom to turn, where the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach, he does not need to reimburse them their expenses, even where he made it an Apotiki ...

ãîùåí ãòùä àôåúé÷é ìà éâøò ëç á"ç áëê, ëéåï ùéù ììå÷ç òì îé ìçæåø...

1.

Reason: Since it is not because he made it an Apotiki that the rights of the Ba'al-Chov should be diminished, seeing as the Loke'ach has someone from whom to claim ...

ããåç÷ ìåîø ãáîñ÷ðà, ãîå÷é ìä áòùàä àôåúé÷é, ìà öøéê ìîä ùäéä îçì÷ áéï îñé÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà ììà îñé÷...

2.

Refuted Rejection: ... because it is a Dochek to say that in the Maskana, which establishes it where he made it an Apotiki, we no longer need to differentiate between where the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach and where it wasn't ...

ùäøé ëì àìå ãáøé øá àùé ùäéä îùéá ìøáéðà -ãáëì äñôøéí ëúåá 'àîø ìéä, "äà ãîñé÷ áéä ùéòåø àøòà ... ;" à"ì, "äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï, ãùåéä ðéäìéä àôåúé÷é .' "

3.

Refutation: ... bering in mind that all of this is said by Rav Ashi answering Ravina - because in all the Sefarim, the text reads 'Amar leih, "Ha de'Masik vih Shi'ur Ar'a ... "; Amar leih, "Hacha be'Mai Askinan, de'Shavyah Neheleih Apotiki" '.

åàéï ãåîä ùäéä çåæø îãáøéå äøàùåðéí.

4.

Reason: ... and it is unlikely that he retracted from his initial statement.

åîéäå àåø"é ìôé äñôøéí ùëúåá áäï 'àîø ìéä, "ëàï áùáç äîâéò ìëúôéí ëàï " ...' ,àåúå úéøåõ åãàé ìà ÷àé.

(l)

Alternative Text/Explanation: The Ri points out that, according to the text that reads 'Amar leih, "Ka'an bi'Shevach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim ... " ', his initial answer definitely does not remain.

åîéäå áøåá äñôøéí âøñéðï 'åëé úéîà ëàï áùáç äîâéò ìëúôéí ...'.

(m)

Conclusion: However, the majority of Sefarim have the text 've'Chi Teima Ka'an bi'Shevach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim ... '.

2)

TOSFOS DH HANICHA LE'MA'AN DE'AMAR ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äðéçà ìîàï ãàîø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with both opinions in the Sugya in Kesuvos.)

ôìåâúà äéà áôø÷ îé ùäéä ðùåé (ëúåáåú ãó öà: åùí) âáé 'ääåà âáøà ãäåå îñ÷é áéä àìôà æåæé' ...

(a)

Clarification: It is a Machlokes in Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy in Kesuvos (Daf 91b & 92a) in connection with 'A man whom they lent a thousand Zuz') ...

åîàï ãàéú ìéä ãìà îöé îñì÷ ìéä äééðå øîé áø çîà, ãñáø äúí 'ìîéîø ãäééðå îúðéúéï '.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): The one who holds there that one cannot pay him off with money is Rami bar Chama, who says there that 'that is the Din of the Mishnah'.

3)

TOSFOS DH KOL Z'CHUS SHE'TAVO LE'YADO

úåñ' ã"ä ëì æëåú ùúáà ìéãå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Rav in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a.)

àò"â ãáô"÷ ãá"î (ãó èå: åùí) îùîò ãàôé' ìøá ãàîø 'éù ìå ùáç' áùìà äëéø áä ùàéðå ùìå, 'åì÷çä' äééðå îâæìï, àáì ðâæì ìà éäéá ùáç...

(a)

Implied Question: Although in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 15b & 16a) it appears that even according to Rav who says that if he did not know that it did not belong to the seller, he can claim the Sh'vach', and that 've'Lakchah' means from the Gazlan, but the owner is not obligated to give him the Sh'vach ...

äééðå á÷ø÷ò ùàéï ðâæìú, ãâæìï âåôéä ìéú ìéä ùáç...

1.

Answer: ...that is specifically with regard to Karka, which is not subject to theft and where the Gazlan himself does not therefore receive the Sh'vach ...

àáì äëà áîèìèìéï, ùéù ùáç ìâæìï îôðé ú÷ðú äùáéí, âí ììå÷ç îîðå éù ìå.

2.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here it is talking about Metalt'lin, where the Gazlan receives the Sh'vach on account of Takanas ha'Shavim, in which case, so does the person who purchased them from him (See also Hagahos ha'G'ra & Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

4)

TOSFOS DH DE'GAZAL DIKLA VE'KATLEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ãâæì ãé÷ìà å÷èìéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the difference between this case and where one steals an animal and kills it.)

àò"â ãâæì áäîä å÷èìä, ÷ðé...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though someone who steals an animal and kills it acquires it ...

äúí äåé ùéðåé ãîéðëø èôé.

(b)

Answer: ... that is a more discernable Shinuy.

5)

TOSFOS DH NECHL'KAH HA'TIYOMES ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ðçì÷ä äúéåîú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites various interpretations of 'Tiyomes'.)

îöà ø"é áúùåáåú äâàåðéí 'ðéèìä äúéåîú' -àåúå äåöà äòìéåï áøàù äìåìá ùàéï äåöà ìîòìä äéîðä, åäåà ëùðé äåöéï ãáå÷éï æä áæä, åð÷øàéï 'úéåîú' .

(a)

Explanation #1: The Ri found in the Teshuvos of the Ge'onim, with reference to 'Nitlah ha'Tiyomes' - 'The uppermost leaf - the one at the top of the Lulav, which is like two leaves that are stuck together - are called the "Tiyomes" '.

åëï îùîò îúåê ä"â ùøåöéí ìôøù ëï.

1.

Support: And that is also how the B'hag seems to define it.

åìãáøéäí ìà éîöà ìðå ìåìá ëùø, ëé áèåøç ðîöàéï àåúï ùéù ìäí 'úéåîú' ëæä àôé' àçã áä' îàåú.

(b)

Problem: According to them, we do not possess a Kasher Lulav, since it is with great difficulty that one finds such a 'Tiyomes' - even one in five hundred!

åéù ìåîø ùàó ìãáøéäí àéï ôñåì àìà ùäéä îúçéìä ëòðéï æä åðçì÷, ùðùúðä îáøééúå.

(c)

Resolution: One can however explain that even according to them, it is only Pasul if it initially grew like that and then split, because it changed from the way it was formed.

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù 'ðçì÷ä úéåîú' ùðé òìéí òìéåðéí àîöòééí ùùí ëìä äùãøä; ðçì÷å æä îæä, åðñã÷ä äùãøä òã äòìéï ùìîèä îäï.

(d)

Explanation #2: Rashi (in Succah, Daf 32a, DH 'Nechl'kah') explains - 'Nechl'kah ha'Tiyomes' - The two top middle leaves that grow from where the spine of the Lulav ends; if they come apart, and the spine too, splits down to the leaves immediately below them.

åîúåê ôéøåùå îùîò ùðñã÷ä äùãøä ëì ëê ùðøàä äòìéï äòìéåðéí çìå÷éï åîôåæøéï æä îæä.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This implies that the spine split to the extent that the top leaves are completely separated from one another.

åòåã àåø"é, ãéù îôøùéí ùëì òìé äìåìá ëôåìéï ëì àçã ìùðéí åéù áøàù äìåìá áñåó äùãøä á' òìéï éåöàéï îîðä ùëì àçã ëôåì ìùðéí ëùàø òìé äìåìá, åàåúí ùðéí òìéï äéåöàéï îøàù äùãøä ð÷øàéï 'úéåîú... '

(e)

Explanation #3: The Ri also cites other commentaries, who explain that all the leaves of the Lulav are doubled (into two), and that at the top of the Lulav from the end of the spine there grow two leaves, each one folded into two (like all the other leaves); those two leaves are called 'the Tiyomes' ...

åà'äðäå áòé 'ðçì÷ä äúéåîú îäå' ? àí ðçì÷å æä îæä, ãäééðå ÷öú îï äùãøä.

1.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And it is in connection with them that the Gemara now asks 'Nechl'kah ha'Tiyomes, Mahu?' - If they separated from one another, meaning that they separated a little from the spine.

åîéäå àéï øåá äìåìáéï ðîöàéï ëòðéï æä.

(f)

Implied Question: The majority of Lulavin that we have however, are not shaped like that.

åîëì î÷åí éù ìåîø ãáòé ãàé îùúëç ëä"â úéåîú åðçì÷ä îäå?

(g)

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara asks what the Din will be, should one find such a Tiyomes which is split.

6)

TOSFOS DH NITLAH HA'TIYOMES PASUL

úåñ' ã"ä ðéèìä äúéåîú ôñåì

(Summary: Tosfos tries to prove from here that 'Niktam Rosho' speaks where the tops of most of the leaves are cut off.)

ðøàä ìø"é ãäà ãàîø 'ð÷èí øàùå ôñåì' äééðå ùð÷èîå äøáä îï äòìéï...

(a)

Halachah: The Ri explains that, when the Gemara rules 'Niktam Rosho Pasul', it means that the tops of most of the leaves have been cut off.

úãò ãàéï ìê 'ð÷èí' éåúø îá÷èéîú äúéåîú, åîùîò ãå÷à 'ðéèìä' ,àáì 'ð÷èí' ëùø.

(b)

Proof: There is no 'Niktam' more than the Ketimah of the Tiyomes, yet it implies that Davka 'Nitlah' is Pasul, but 'Niktam' is Kasher.

åòåã àø"é, ãîöé ìîéîø ã'ðéèìä' àöèøéëà ìéä, ãñ"ã ãäåé äãø èôé ëùðéèìä ëåìä éåúø îð÷èí.

(c)

Refutation: But then he (the Ri) said that it may well be that the Tana mentions 'Nitlah' (not for the inference, but) because we would otherwise have thought that 'Nitlah', which is completely removed, is more Hadar than 'Niktam'.

96b----------------------------------------96b

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'AVDEIH ZUZI LO KANAH

úåñ' ã"ä åòáãéä æåæé ìà ÷ðé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why specifically coins.)

ãå÷à òáãéä æåæé...

(a)

Clarification: Specifically where he made coins with it ...

àáì òùä îï äðñëà ëìé- ëâåï ëåñ ùì ëñó, ÷ðé, àò"â ãäãø òáéã ìéä ðñëà...

(b)

Clarification (cont.): But if he made a K'li with the silver - such as a silver cup, he would acquire it, even if he subsequently reverted it to silver.

ãìà âøò îðñøéí åòùàï ëìéí.

1.

Reason: ... since it is no worse than planks which one manufactured into Keilim.

àáì æåæé åìáéðä àéï úåøú çùéáåú òìéäï ë"ë.

2.

Reason (cont.): But coins and a brick are not so Chashuv

8)

TOSFOS DH HA'MACHLIF PARAH BA'CHAMOR

úåñ' ã"ä äîçìéó ôøä áçîåø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana presents the cases specifically the way he does.)

àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è, ùãøê ìäçìéó ôøä áçîåø åìîëåø ùôçä áãîéí.

(a)

Clarification: This is what normally happens, because it is the way to exchange a cow for a donkey and to sell a Shifchah for money

àáì àéï ìôøù ãìà îöé ìîéð÷è 'äîåëø ôøä åéìãä' -ìôé ùàéï ôøä ð÷ðéú áëñó àìà áîùéëä, åáùòú îùéëä øåàä àí éìãä àí ìàå...

(b)

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that the Tana could not have stated 'ha'Mocher Parah ve'Yaldah' - because one cannot acquire a cow with money, only with Meshichah, and during the Meshichah, one can see whether it gave birth or not

àáì ùôçä ð÷ðéú áëñó, ãòáãéí äå÷ùå ì÷ø÷òåú...

1.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): ... whereas a Shifchah one can acquire with money, since Avadim are compared to Karka'os.

ãäà øáé îàéø ÷úðé ìä, åøáé îàéø ìà î÷éù...

(c)

Refutation: ... because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Meir who does not compare them ...

ãäà ÷àîø ã'ðùáòéí òì äòáãéí, åòì ä÷ø÷òåú' àéú ìéä ã'àéï ðùáòéï... ' ëãîåëç áùáåòåú (ãó îá. åùí) âáé 'éù ãáøéí ùäï ë÷ø÷ò åàéðï ë÷ø÷ò'.

(d)

Source: ... becaue he maintains 'Nishba'in al ha'Avadim (ve'al Karka'os Ein Nishba'in') - as is evident in Shevu'os (Daf 42a & 42b), in connection with 'Yesh Devarim she'hein ke'Karka ve'Einan ke'Karka'.

åëéåï ãìà î÷éù ìòðéï ùáåòä, ä"ä ìòðéï ÷ðéï...

1.

Source (cont.): ... and since he does not compare them with regard to Shevu'ah, the same will apply with regard to Kinyan ...

ãäà îééúé øàéä äëà îùáåòä à'âæì.

2.

Proof: ... seeing as the Gemara brings a proof here from Shevu'ah on to Gezel.

åîéäå ÷öú éù ìçì÷, ãìòðéï âæì åùáåòä ðøàä ìâîøà ìäùååú, ãúøåééäå ðô÷é òì éãé 'ëìì åôøè' ...

(e)

Refutation: One can however, draw a distinction and say that regarding Gezel and Shevu'ah, the Gemara compares them, since both are derived from a 'K'lal u'Perat' ...

âæì ì÷îï áô' áúøà (ãó ÷éæ:) åùáåòåú áôø÷ [ùáåòú äãééðéí] (ùáåòåú ãó îá:).

1.

Source: ... Gezel, later in the last Perek (on Daf 117b) and Shevu'os in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 42b)

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'HALAH SHOSEIK ZACHAH BAH

úåñ' ã"ä åäìä ùåú÷ æëä áä

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the ruling even according to the opinion that holds 'La'av Bari Adif')

ìî"ã ã'áøé åùîà áøé òãéó' ðéçà...

(a)

Statement: This goes well with the opinion that holds 'Bari ve'Shema, Bari Adif' ...

åìîàï ãàîø 'ìà áøé òãéó' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And as for the opinion that holds 'Lo Bari Adif' ...

àåø"é ùäåà îôøù ã'ùúé÷ä ëäåãàä ãîéà' ,åìà ëàåîø 'àéðé éåãò' .

(c)

Answer: He will explain that 'Silence is akin to admission', and not like saying that one doesn't know.