1)

TOSFOS DH U'MI AMAR RAV AVDA KI'MKARKA'I DAMI VE'HA'AMAR RAV DANIEL BAR RAV KETINA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åîé àîø øá òáãà ëî÷ø÷òé ãîé åäàîø øá ãðéàì áø øá ÷èéðà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains what the Din would be if Avadim were like Karka.)

åàí äéä ëî÷ø÷òé ãîé, àôé' ðçú ìéä áúåøú âæìðåú, ìà ðô÷ îøùåúéä ãîøéä, ãäåé ë÷ø÷ò ãàéï ðâæìú ...

(a)

Clarification: If Avadim were like Karka, even if he went down to the field in order to steal it, he would not take it out of the owner's domain - like Karka which cannot be stolen ...

åîùìí àâøà äéëà ã÷àé ìàâøà, ëîå ñôéðä ãì÷îï äéëà ãìà ðçú ìéä áúåøú âæìðåú.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... and he would have to pay the hiring fee, there where he stands to be hired, just like a boat later in the Sugya, which he entered not in order to steal it.

2)

TOSFOS DH HILVEIHU VE'DAR BA'CHATZEIRO

úåñ' ã"ä äìåäå åãø áçöéøå

(Summary: Tosfos establishes this Sugya like the first Lashon in Bava Metzi'a, and discusses it in detail.)

ëåìä ñåâéà ãäëà ëìéùðà ÷îà ãàéæäå ðùê (á"î ãó ñã: åùí).

(a)

Clarification: This entire Sugya conforms to the first Lashon in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 64b & 65a)

ö"ò äéàê äìåä îåúø ìòùåú ùåí èåáä ìîìåä, àôé' ãáøéí ùäéä òåùä ìå áìà äìåàä...

(b)

Question: One needs to look into the matter as to how one is permitted to do one's creditor the slightest favor, even things that one would do even if he had not lent him money ...

åàôéìå ãáøéí ùàéï øâéìåú ìéèåì îäï ùëø éäà àñåø, ãåîéà ãçöø ãìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà...

1.

Question (cont.): In fact, even things that one does not normally take payment for ought to be forbidden, similar to a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented ...

åë"ù ãáøéí ùàéï øâéìåú ìäùàéì áçðí, ëâåï ìäùàéì ñåñå ùéäà àñåø àôé' äåà ë"ë àåäáå ùáìàå äëé äéä îùàéìå...

2.

Question (cont.): ... and certainly things that one does not generally lend free of charge, such as lending him one's horse, should be Asur, even if he loves him to the extent that he would lend it to him anyway ...

åà"ë éåúø îãàé éù ìå ìéæäø ììåä ùìà éòùä ìîìåä ùåí äðàä?

3.

Question (concl.): In that case, a borrower should take great care not to do the creditor any favors?

åé"ì, ããå÷à îéìé ãôøäñéà åàååùà èåáà ëâåï ìãåø áçöéøå åìú÷åó áòáãå, àáì ìäùàéì ìå ëìéå àå àôé' ñåñå ëéåï ãáìàå äëé îùàéìå, îåúø.

(c)

Answer: It is only things that are public knowledge such as living in his Chatzer and grabbing his Eved, but lending him one's Keilim, or even one's horse, where he would have done so anyway, is permitted.

åãé÷à ðîé ãð÷è áîúðé' 'çöéøå' åìà ð÷è 'ìà éùëéø ìå ëìéå àå áäîúå áôçåú.'

(d)

Proof: And one can extrapolate this from the fact that the Mishnah (in Bava Metzi'a, 64b) says 'his Chatzer', and not simply 'He is not permitted to rent him his vessels or his animal for less than the going price'.

åòåã, ùîà é"ì ãëì äéëà ã÷åãí äìåàä äéå àåäáéí æä àú æä ùäéå îùàéìéï çöø æä ìæä àí äéå öøéëéï, îåúø ìäùàéì àó ìàçø äìåàä...

(e)

Answer (cont.): Furthermore, it may well be that, wherever they were so friendly before the loan that they would have lent each other a Chatzer had the need arisen, it is permitted to lend even after the loan ...

åîúðé' ãàéæäå ðùê (ùí) àééøé áñúí áðé àãí ùàéï øâéìåú ùéäà òåùä ìåä ìîìåä àåúä äðàä áìà äìåàä...

1.

Answer (concl.): And the Mishnah in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Ibid.) is speaking about ordinary people who do not tend to do each other such favors even when no loan has taken place ...

ãåîéà ãä÷ãîú ùìåí, ùàéï àñåø àìà áàåúå ùìà äéä øâéì ìä÷ãéí ìå î÷åãí ìëï.

2.

Precedent: ... similar to greeting, which is only forbidden if he did not greet him before the loan.

åîéäå àôéìå ãáø ùäéä îùàéìå áìàå äëé, ëâåï çöø ãìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà, àí ðëðñ ùìà îãòú çáéøå çééá, àò"ô ùàí ìà äìåä ìå ìà äéä çééá ìúú ìå ùëø, ëãîùîò äëà.

(f)

Clarification: However, even something that the borrower would have lent the lender anyway, such as a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented out, he will be Chayav should he enter it without permission, even where, if not for the loan he would not be Chayav to pay rental, as is implied here.

åìôé æä, ääéà ã'àéæäå ðùê' (ùí) àééøé ãå÷à áçöø ã÷ééîà ìàâøà, ãäúí àééøé îãòúå, ëã÷àîø 'ìà éùëåø äéîðå áôçåú' ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): According to this, the Sugya in 'Eizehu Neshech' is speaking specifically about a Chatzer that stands to be rented out, since there it is speaking where he entered it with his knowledge, as it states 'He may not rent it for less than the going price' ...

àáì áìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà äéä îåúø, ëéåï ãáøùåúå ðëðñ, åâí áìà äìåàä äéä îðéç ìå ìãåø áçðí.

2.

Clarification (cont.): ... but where it does not stand to be rented out, it would be permitted to live there free of charge.

åäàé ã÷àîø äúí òìä ãîéìúà ãäëà 'îàé ÷î"ì, úðéðà' ? åîùðé - 'îäå ãúéîà ä"î çöø ã÷ééîà ìàâøà, ÷î"ì' ...

(g)

Implied Question: And when it says there with regard to the case here 'What is the Chidush? We have learned it in the Mishnah?', and it answers 'We would otherwise have thought that it speaks specifically about a Chatzer that stands to be rented out; Therefore it teaches us otherwise' ...

ìà áòé ìîéîø ÷î"ì ãîúðéúéï àééøé àôéìå áãìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà, ãîúðéúéï åãàé ìà îééøé àìà ãå÷à áã÷ééîà ìàâøà, ëéåï ãîééøé îãòúå...

1.

Refuted Explanation: It does not mean to say that the Mishnah is teaching us that the same will apply in the case of a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented out, since, seeing as the Mishnah is speaking with his knowledge, it can only be speaking about one that does ...

àìà ä"ô -÷î"ì ãàôé' ìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà, àñåø, äéëà ãìà äåé îãòúå.

2.

Answer: ... But it means that it is coming to teach us that even though it does not stand to be rented out, it will be Asur, there where it not with his knowledge.

åôéøåù æä ãçå÷, ãäôùè îùîò ãà'îúðéúéï ÷àé, å÷î"ì ãîúðé' àééøé àôé' áãìà ÷ééîà ìàâøà, àò"â ãàééøé ùðëðñ îãòúå.

(h)

Question: This explanation is a Dochek however, since the implication is that it is coming to teach us that the Mishnah is speaking even where the Chatzer does not stand to be rented out, despite the fact that he entered it with permission.

3)

TOSFOS DH HA'MALVEH ES CHAVERO AL HA'MATBE'A

úåñ' ã"ä äîìåä àú çáéøå òì äîèáò

(Summary: Tosfos presents three interpretations of Rav's opinion.)

ô"ä 'äìåä ìçáéøå ùåí ôø÷îèéà òì äîèáò ù÷öá ìå áîòåú, ðåúï ìå îòåú ùéåöàéï áùòú ôøòåï, ãäà ÷áì òìéå ìúú îèáò.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if he lent his friend merchandise against coins which he designated, he must give him coins that are in circulation at the time of payment, seeing as he undertook to give him coins ...

åãå÷à äìåäå ôø÷îèéà, àáì äìåäå îòåú, îä ùäìåäå îùìí ìå' .òë"ì ä÷åðèøñ.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... specifically if he lent him merchandise, but if he lent him money, he must pay him the same as he lent him (until here is the wording of Rashi).

åìôéøåùå ðøàä ãàí äìåäå îòåú ðîé å÷öá ìå ùéùìí ìå îòåú, ãîùìí îèáò äéåöà áàåúä ùòä, ãîòåú ùðôñìå ìàå îèáò ðéðäå...

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to his explanation it seems that if he lent him money and specifically fixed with him that he would pay him money, then there too, he must pay him coinage that is in circulation at that time, since money that has been taken out of circulation is not called coinage ...

åìà ð÷è á÷åðèøñ 'ôø÷îèéà' àìà îùåí ãëùîìåä àãí îòåúéå, àéï øâéìéï ìäæëéø ãáø, àáì ëùîåëø ôø÷îèéà, àôé' àîø ñúí 'ëê åëê îòåú úúï' ,öøéê ìùìí ìå îèáò äéåöà.

1.

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... and Rashi only mentioned 'merchandise' because when someone lends money, he doesn't normally designate the payment, but when he sells merchandise, even if he said S'tam 'This is the amount that you must pay', he is obligated to pay in coinage that is in circulation.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãä"ì ìîéîø 'äîåëø ìçáéøå òì äîèáò' àå ä"ì ìîéð÷è 'äî÷éó' ?

(c)

Question #1: He ought to have said 'Someone who sells his friend against coins; or he should have used the word 'ha'Makif' ...

åòåã, ëéåï ãîòåú ôø÷îèéà æå÷ó òìéå áîìåä, àéï ñáøà ëìì ìçì÷ áéï äìåäå îòåú ìôø÷îèéà ùîëø áîòåú?

(d)

Question #2: ... seeing as the he turned the amount owing for the merchandise into a loan, there is no S'vara to differentiate between whether he lends him merchandise or money?

åðøàä ìôøù ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï îëø ìå ôø÷îèéà áéï äìåäå îòåú, åîééøé ëùäúðä òîå ò"î ùéùìí ìå îòåú...

(e)

Explanation #2: It seem that there is no difference between whether one sells merchandise or lends money, and it speaks when he stipulated that he will pay him money ...

åëéåï ùôéøù ìå ëê, ñúîà ãîéìúà ìëê ôéøù -ùàí éôñì, éúï ìå îèáò äéåöà, ãàåúå ùðôñì àéï ùîå îèáò.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and since he did, we assume that what he meant was that, in the event the coins are withdrawn from circulation, he will pay him coins that are currently in circulation - since those that have been withdrawn no longer fall under the heading of coins.

åùîåàì ñáø ãëéåï ùéåöà áîéùï, ùí îèáò òìéå.

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... whereas according to Shmuel, since they are still used in Meishan, they are still deemed coins.

åòåã àåø"é, ãé"ì ëâåï ùäìåäå ñàä çèéï åàîø ìå 'àå úçæåø ìé ñàä àå ëê åëê îòåú' ...

(f)

Explanation #3: Furthermore the Ri explains, one can explain that it speaks where he lent him a Sa'ah of wheat and stipulated that 'Either you give me back a Sa'ah of wheat or such and such a sum of money' ...

åàéìå áîòåú ìçåãééäå ÷öá, äéä îùìí ìå îèáò ùðôñì...

1.

Explanation #3 (cont.): ... because had he fixed only the sum of money, he would be entitled to pay back coins that have been withdrawn ...

àáì äëà ùìà æ÷ó òìéå áîìåä âîåøä, ùéëåì ìôøåò ìå çèéï àí éøöä, ðåúï ìå îèáò äéåöà áàåúä ùòä.

2.

Explanation #3 (concl.): ... but now that he did not turn it into a proper loan, seeing as he remains with the option of paying back wheat, he is obligated to pay him coins that are in circulation at that time.

åìëì äôéøåùéí àí äìåäå îòåú ñúí, îòåú ùäìåä ìå éôøò ìå, àôé' ùðôñì.

(g)

Conclusion: According to all the explanations, if he lent him money S'tam, the money that he let him, he pays him back, even if it is no longer in circulation.

97b----------------------------------------97b

4)

TOSFOS DH HA'MALVEH ES CHAVERO AL HA'MATBE'A

úåñ' ã"ä äîìåä àú çáéøå òì äîèáò

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the previous statement with the Mishnah on Daf 96.)

)éôøò ìå àôé' ùðôñì( åàí úàîø, åî"ù îâæìï ãúðï 'âæì îèáò åðôñì, àåîø ìå "äøé ùìê ìôðéê" - 'îùîò îùåí ãéùðå áòéï, àáì ìéúðäå áòéï, îùìí ëùòú äâæéìä...

(a)

Question: What is the difference between this case and that of Gazlan, about which the Mishnah (earlier 96b) states 'Gaza Matbe'a ve'Nifsal, Omer lo "Harei she'Lecha lefanecha" ' - implying that it is still available, but that if it is not, he would have to pay according to its value at the time that he stole it ...

åäëà âáé äìåàä, àôé' àéúðäå áòéï, ëé ìéúðäå ãîé, ãîìåä ìäåöàä ðéúðä?

1.

Question (cont.): Whilst here, in connection with a loan, even if the money is available, it is the same as if was not, seeing as money is meant to be spent?

åé"ì, ãéù ìçì÷ áéï äìåàä ìâæéìä, ãîèáò ùðôñì çùéá ëäåæì, åáîòé÷øà ùåéï ã' åìáñåó ùåéï æåæà âáé âæìï, àîøéðï ãëé ìéúðäå áòéï, ãîùìí ëãîòé÷øà...

(b)

Answer: One can differentiate between Halva'ah and Gezeilah, inasmuch as a coin that has been withdrawn is considered like one that has dropped in price - and, in the case of a Gazlan, where it was initially worth four Zuz and later dropped to one, the Din is that, if it is no longer available, he pays the original price.

àáì âáé äìåàä, äéëà ãäåæì, îùìí ëé æåìà ãäùúà...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas by Halva'ah, there where it depreciated, he pays the current value ...

ëãàîøéðï áàéæäå ðùê (á"î ãó òä.) 'îìåä àãí ëåø çèéï: äåæìå, ðåúï çèéï; äå÷øå, ðåúï ãîéäï' .

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 75a) 'Malveh Adam Kur Chitin:Huzlu, Nosein Chitin, Hukru, Nosein Demeihen'.

åîèáò ùðôñì åãàé äåé ëäåæì.

3.

Answer (concl.): ... and a coin which has been withdrawn is equivalent to where it depreciated.

åðøàä ãøá åùîåàì ñáøé ëøá äåðà ãìòéì, ãìøá éäåãä ãçùéá îèáò ùðôñì ëðñã÷, âáé äìåàä ìà îöé ôèø ðôùéä áîèáò ùðôñì...

(c)

Clarification: And it appears that Rav and Shmuel hold like Rav Huna above (on Amud Alef), because, according to Rav Yehudah who compares a coin that has been withdrawn to one that has split, in the case of Halva'ah, he would not be able to exempt himself with a withdrawn coin ...

àáì ìøá äåðà ãìà çùéá ìéä ëðñã÷, îöé ôèø ìéä ðôùéä áðôñì...

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... whilst according to Rav Huna, who does not (compare it to a split coin), he would.

àò"ô ãøá äåðà îãîä îèáò ùðôñì ìúøåîä åðèîàú åçîõ ùòáø òìéå äôñç, åäà ôùéèà ãàéï ìåä éëåì ìùìí úøåîä èîàä úçú úøåîä èäåøä, åçîõ àñåø áúùìåîé äéúø...

(d)

Implied Question: Even though Rav Huna compares a withdrawn coin to T'rumah that became Tamei and to Chametz that was kept over Pesach - and it is obvious that the borrower is not able to pay T'rumah Teme'ah in lieu of T'rumah Tehorah, or forbidden Chametz in lieu of a payment that is permitted ...

ìà ãîé ìâîøé, ãîèáò ùðôñì ãîé ìäåæì, åäðäå ìà ãîå ìäåæì.

(e)

Answer: ... it is not quite the same, seeing as a coin that has been withdrawn is compared to one that has depreciated, whereas they are not.

åîëì î÷åí ëùäåà áòéï, éëåì ìåîø 'äøé ùìê ìôðéê' ,åëùàéðå áòéï àôé' áäåæì îùìí ëãîòé÷øà.

(f)

Conclusion: In any event, as long as it is available, he is able to say 'Harei she'Lecha lefanecha!', and when it is not, even if it depreciated, he pays according to the initial price.

5)

TOSFOS DH I HACHI SHEL BAVEL VE'HEIN BE'BAVEL LE'MAI CHAZI

úåñ' ã"ä àé äëé ùì ááì åäï áááì ìîàé çæé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Kashya is seemingly confined to Rav Nachman.)

÷öú îùîò ãìà ôøéê àìà ìøá ðçîï, ãàå÷é îéìúà ãùîåàì ãå÷à áãàéú ìéä àåøçà ìîéùï ...

(a)

Inference: This implies slightly that the Kashya only goes according to Rav Nachman, who establishes Shmuel specifically where he actually intends to go to Meishan ...

îãôøéê 'à"ä ùì ááì ? ...' ,îùîò ãàé ìàå ãàå÷îà ëùîìëéåú î÷ôéãåú, ìà äåä ÷ùä åìà îéãé.

1.

Inference (cont.): ... seeing as it asks 'If so, money of Bavel ... ?'

å÷ùä ìø"é, ãáìàå øá ðçîï öøéê ò"ë ìàå÷îé áøééúà áúøééúà ëùîìëéåú î÷ôéãåú, ãìà úé÷ùé îéðä ìùîåàì, ãçùéá ìéä îèáò àôéìå ìéú ìéä àåøçà ìîéùï, àé ìéúà ìãøá ðçîï ...

(b)

Question #1: The Ri asks that, even without Rav Nachman, we need to establish the latter Beraisa where the states are particular with one another (See Maharshal & Maharsha), in order not to query Shmuel, who considers it a coin even if he does not intend to go to Meishan - if we do not hold like Rav Nachman ...

åäëà ÷úðé ãàéï îçììéï òì îòåú ùì ëàï åäï áááì, åàò"â ãàéú ìéä àåøçà ìéøåùìéí?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas here the Tana says that one cannot redeem it on local money which is in Bavel, even though he intends to go to Yerushalayim?

åú÷ùé ðîé òìä ãáøééúà áúøééúà îääéà ãìòéì ã'ùì îìëéí àçøåðéí îçììéï, ' àò"â ãàéï éåöàåú ùí áî÷åí ùòåîã, ìôé ùéåöàú áî÷åí àçø...

(c)

Question #2: And one can also query the latter Beraisa from what we just learned that one can redeem it on a coin of the latter king, even though they cannot be spent there where he is, since they can be spent elsewhere ...

åäëà ÷úðé ãòì îòåú ùì ëàï åäï áááì àéï îçììéï, àò"â ãéåöàåú áéøåùìéí ?

1.

Question #2 (cont.): ... whereas here the Tana holds that one cannot redeem it on local money that is in Bavel, even though they can be spent it in Yerushalayim?

àìà äúí àééøé ëùàéï îìëéåú î÷ôéãåú àí ðøàåú îèáò ùì îìê äàçø áîãéðúå ùì æä, äìëê [áàéí] áðé îìëéåú àçøú ëàï åîåëøéï áäîúí áîèáò ùìäí, åéëåì äåà ìäåöéàí áéøåùìéí ìáðé ùàø îãéðåú äáàåú ìëàï.

2.

Question #2 (cont.): ... only there it speaks where the states are not particular if they discover a coin of another king in their country, which is why people from other countries come here and sell their animals using their own coins, and they are subsequently able to spend them in Yerushalayim to people from other countries who come there ...

åäëà àééøé áî÷ôéãåú.

3.

Question #2 (concl.): ... whereas here it speaks where they are particular.

åðøàä ìø"é ãåãàé àé ìàå îéìúéä ãøá ðçîï, äåä à"ù äëì, åìà äåä öøéê ìàå÷îà áøééúà áúøééúà ëùäîìëéåú î÷ôéãåú...

(d)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that undoubtedly, were it not for the statement of Rav Nachman, everything would be fine, and it would not be necessary to establish the latter Beraisa where the states are particular ...

ãìà ÷ùä îéðéä ìùîåàì åìà ìääéà áøééúà ãìòéì ...

1.

Answer (without Rav Nachman): ... since there would be no Kashya from it, either on Shmuel or on the earlier Beraisa ...

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï îòåú ùì ëàï åäï áááì ìäðäå ãìòéì ãàééøé áîèáò ùðôñì áî÷åí àçã åéåöà áî÷åí àçø...

2.

Answer (without Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... since one can draw a distinction between the money which is here and they are in Bavel and the money in the earlier case, which speaks about a coin that has been withdrawn in one place and is still in circulation in another ...

ãäúí åãàé çùåá îèáò, ã÷åãí ùðôñìä äéä çùåá ùí îèáò åòãééï îèáò ÷ééí ìáðé àåúå î÷åí òöîå ùðôñì ùí, ùéëåìéï ìäåöéàå áî÷åí àçø...

3.

Answer (without Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... because there it is certainly considered a coin. Why? Because before it was withdrawn it was a genuine coin in that place, and it still is regarding the people there, seeing as they can use it somewhere else.

àáì ùì ëàï åäï áááì, ìà äéä òìéå ùí îèáò áááì îòåìí, åìëê àéï îçììéï, àò"â ãàéú ìéä àåøçà ìéøåùìéí.

4.

Answer (without Rav Nachman [concl.]): But concerning 'the money which is here and they are in Bavel', it was never considered a coin in Bavel, and therefore they cannot redeem it, even though they intend to travel to Yerushalayim.

àáì ìøá ðçîï ãàå÷é îéìúà ãùîåàì ãå÷à áãàéú ìéä àåøçà ìîéùï, àáì ëé ìéú ìéä àåøçà ìîéùï, ìà...

(e)

Answer (with Rav Nachman): ... whereas according to Rav Nachman, who establishes Shmuel's ruling specifically where he intends to travel to Meishan, but otherwise, not ...

çùéá îèáò îèòí ùäéä ëáø îèáò áàåúå î÷åí, åòãééï éëåì ìäåöéà áîéùï, åìà úìé àìà áàéú ìéä àåøçà ìäúí ...

1.

Answer (with Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... it is considered a coin a. because it was already a coin in that place, and b. because he can still use it in Meishan, and it all depends on the fact that he intends to travel to Meishan ...

à"ë, ëê éù ìå îèáòùäéä ëáø îèáò áî÷åí æä ëîå îèáò ùì î÷åí àçø ùìà áà îòåìí ëàï...

2.

Answer (with Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... If so, there is no difference as to whether he has a coin which was once a coin here or whether he has a coin of the other place that was never valid here ...

à"ë, ùì ëàï åäï áááì ðîé ìéùåéä ìéä îèáò, ãäà àéú ìéä àåøçà ìéøåùìéí?

3.

Answer (with Rav Nachman [concl.]): In that case, if they have a local coin and they are in Bavel, it should also be considered a coin, seeing as they intend to travel to Yerushalayim.

6)

TOSFOS DH DE'ZAVIN B'HU BEHEIMAH U'MASIK LI'YERUSHALAYIM

úåñ' ã"ä ãæáéï áäå áäîä åîñé÷ ìéøåùìéí

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Beraisa in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh and discusses the reason of the opinion that prohibits purchasing an animal with money of Ma'aser Sheini.)

åàí úàîø, åäúðéà áôø÷ äàéù î÷ãù (÷ãåùéï ãó ðä:) 'àéï ìå÷çéï áäîä áîòåú îòùø ùðé' ?

(a)

Question: We learned in a Beraisa in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh' (Kidushin, Daf 55b) 'Ein Lokchin Beheimah be'Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini'?

åéù ìåîø, ãôìåâúà äéà áôø÷ ìåìá äâæåì (ñåëä ãó î:) - ãúðéà 'àçã ùáéòéú åàçã îòùø ùðé îúçììéï òì áäîä, çéä åòåó ,áéï çééï áéï ùçåèéï, ãáøé ø"î. åçëîéí àåîøéí 'òì ùçåèéï îúçììéï, òì çééï àéï îúçììéï' .

(b)

Answer #1: That is a Machlokes in a Beraisa in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah, Daf 40b), where Rebbi Meir states that Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheini can be redeemed (Mischal'lin) on an animal, a Chayah or a bird, whether they are alive or Shechted, whilst the Chachamim rule that they can only be redeemed on a Shechutah but not on one that is alive.

åìø"î àôé' ìëúçéìä ùøé, ëãîåëç áúåñôúà ãäúí ã÷úðé áäãéà 'îçììéï' .

(c)

Answer #1 (cont.): In fact, Rebbi Meir permits redeeming them even Lechatchilah, as is evident in the Tosefta in Shevi'is (7:5), where it specifically writes 'Mechal'lin'.

åäà ã÷úðé áñåëä 'îúçììéï' ...

1.

Implied Question: .. and it only says in Succah 'Mischal'lin' ...

îùåí øáðï ãàôé' áãéòáã àéï îúçììéï.

2.

Answer: ... to counter the Rabanan who say that even Bedi'eved Ein Mischal'lin.

åòåã é"ì, ãáùîòúéï ëéåï ãàé àôùø áòðéï àçø, ùàéï éëåì ìäòìåú äîòåú ìéøåùìéí, ùøé ìîéæáï áäå áäîä ìëåìé òìîà.

(d)

Answer #2: Furthermore one can say in our Sugya, that since there is no other alternative, seeing as he cannot take the money to Yerushalayim, it is permitted to purchase an animal with it according to all opinions.

åèòîà ãàéï ìå÷çéï áäîä îîòåú îòùø ùðé ôéøù á÷åðèøñ á÷ãåùéï (ãó ðä:) 'îùåí ëçùà' .

(e)

Explanation #1: Rashi in Kidushin (Daf 55b) ascribes the reason that one cannot purchase an animal with the money of Ma'aser Sheini to the fact that it might become weak (See Rashi there DH 'Ein Lokchin').

åàéï äèòí áùáéì ëï -àìà ëãîôøù áñåëä (ãó î:) ãàîø äúí 'îçìå÷ú áæëøéí, àáì áð÷áåú ãáøé äëì áùçåèéï îúçììéï, åòì çééï àéï îúçììéï, ùîà éâãì îäí òãøéí òãøéí. '

(f)

Explanation #2: But that is not the reason - only as the Gemara explains in Succah (Daf 40b), that they argue over male animals, but as far as females are concerned, both agree that one may redeem them on Shechted animals, but not on live ones - 'Because one might come to rear flocks of them' ...

åáæëøéí ôìéâé àé âæøéðï æëøéí àèå ð÷áåú àé ìà.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the Machlokes by males is whether we decree males on account of females or not.

åëï îôøù áéøåùìîé ãîñëú îòùø ùðé, ãèòîà ãàñåø ì÷ðåú æëøéí âæéøä àèå ð÷áåú.

(g)

Support: And the Yerushalmi too, explains in Maseches Mas'aser Sheini (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), that the reason that one cannot purchase males is due to a decree on account of females.

7)

TOSFOS DH SHE'YEHU KOL HA'MA'OS YOTZ'OS BI'YERUSHALAYIM

úåñ' ã"ä ùéäå ëì äîòåú éåöàåú áéøåùìéí

(Summary: Tosfos presents the reason for the ruling.)

èòîà îôøù áîñëú ù÷ìéí (ãó ç) ã'ú÷ðå îùåí ù÷ìéí ùäéå îáéàéï ìéøåùìéí îëì äî÷åîåú'.

(a)

Reason: The reason is explained in Maseches Shekalim (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) - 'They instituted it due to the fact that they used to bring coins to Yerushalayim from all over'.

8)

TOSFOS DH MATBE'A SHEL AVRAHAM AVINU ZAKEIN U'ZEKEINAH MI'TZAD ECHAD

úåñ' ã"ä îèáò ùì àáøäí àáéðå æ÷ï åæ÷éðä îöã àçã

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement, based on a Midrash.)

ááøàùéú øáä ãøéù "åàâãìä ùîê" ,'ùéöà ìå îåðéèé"ï áòåìí. åîäå "îåðéèé"ï? " æ÷ï åæ÷éðä îëàï, áçåø åáçåøä îëàï' .

(a)

Source: The Bereishis Rabah (39:11) Darshens "And I will aggrandize your name", that Monitin (minted coins) will go out in the world to commemorate him. What is 'Monitin'? An old man and an old woman on one side, a young man and a young woman, on the other'.

åðøàä -ìà ùäéä áå öåøú æ÷ï åæ÷éðä îëàï áçåø åáçåøä îëàï...

(b)

Wrong Explanation: This does not mean that it had the picture of an old man and an old woman on one side and that of a young man and a young woman on the other ...

ãàñåø ìòùåú öåøú àãí.

1.

Reason: ... since it is forbidden to make the image of a person (Gemara, Avodah Zarah, Daf 27a).

àìà ëê äéä ëúåá îöã àçã 'æ÷ï åæ÷éðä' åîöã àçø 'áçåø åáúåìä' .

(c)

Correct Explanation: What it therefore means is that the words 'Zaken u'Zekeinah' were written on one side, and 'Bachur u'Besulah, on the other.

åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ âáé 'ãåã åùìîä åéøåùìéí òéø ä÷åãù', ùëê äéä ëúåá áîèáò.

(d)

Support: And that is how Rashi explains regarding 'David u'Sh'lomoh' and 'Yerushalayim Ir ha'Kodesh' which, he says, was written on the coin (See Mesores ha'Shas).