BAVA KAMA 108 (9 Adar I) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Sarah bas Zishe Ehrmann, by her grandson Zev Rosenbaum (of Yerushalayim), in honor of her Yahrzeit

1)

TOSFOS DH U'BA'U EIDIM A'KAMAYSA

úåñ' ã"ä åáàå òãéí à÷îééúà

(Summary: Tosfos queries this statement and explains it.)

úéîä, ãò"ë ëùáàå òãéí à'÷îééúà åàåîøéí 'áàåúä ùòä øàéðåäå áøùåúå, åðîöà ùîëçéùéï âí ùáåòä ùðéä -ùðùáò ùàáã...

(a)

Question: When the witnesses came after the first Shevu'ah and testified that at that time they saw it in his R'shus, they contradict the second Shevu'ah as well - when he swore that it was lost ...

åëùäåãä àçø òãéí, àîàé îùìí çåîù, äà ÷úðé ìòéì ááøééúà ã'äéëï ô÷ãåðé? ...' ,äåãä îòöîå, îùìí ÷øï åçåîù' ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... so when he admits after the witnesses, why does he pay the Chomesh, seeing as we learned earlier in a Beraisa (on 106a [See also Mesores ha'Shas]) in the case of 'Where is my Pikadon ... ?' that if he admits of his own volition he pays the Keren plus the Chomesh ...

îùîò ãå÷à äåãä îòöîå, àáì àçø òãéí, ìà?

2.

Question (concl.): ... implying specifically of his own volition (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), but that if he does so after witnesses, he is not?

åéù ìåîø, ãìòåìí áèòðú àáã äåãä ìàçø òãéí ðîé îùìí çåîù...

(b)

Answer: After Ta'anas Avad, he is Chayav to pay the Chomesh, even if he admits after the witnesses ...

ëãîùîò áñîåê ã÷àîø 'îëãé äàé ùáåòä ìà îçééáà ìéä ëôì, úçééáéä çåîù? àìà ùîò îéðä îîåï äîçééáå ëôì, ôåèøå îï äçåîù' ...

1.

Support: ... as is implied shortly, when the Gemara says 'Indeed, since this Shevu'ah does not obligate him to pay Kefel, why does it not obligate him to pay a Chomesh? From here we see that Mamon that obligates him to pay Kefel, exempts him from the Chomesh ...

îùîò äà äéëà ãìéëà ëôì áäòãàú òãéí, ëîå áèòðú àáã, ãîúçééá çåîù, áäåãä àçø òãéí?

2.

Support (cont.): ... thus implying that wherever the admission via the witnesses does not obligate him to pay Kefel - such as where he claims that it is lost, it obligates him to pay a Chomesh, even where he admits after the witnesses?

åìòéì ìàå ãå÷à ð÷è 'îòöîå' àìà äåà äãéï àçø òãéí.

(c)

Clarification: And when the Tana said Hodeh me'Atzmo, that is La'av Davka, because the same applies even where he admits after witnesses ...

åàééãé ãúðà áñéôà 'äåãä îòöîå' âáé èåòï èòðú âðá, úðà ðîé áøéùà.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... only since in the Seifa, in connection with 'To'en Ta'anas Ganav', he says 'Hodeh me'Atzmo', he says it also in the Reisha.

2)

TOSFOS DH CHAD NISHBA VE'HODEH VE'CHAD NISHBA U'BA'U EIDIM

úåñ' ã"ä çã [ðùáò] åäåãä åçã [ðùáò] åáàå òãéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and reconciles it with the Beraisa cited earlier in the Perek.)

ðøàä ãå÷à ð÷è îúçéìä 'äåãä' ...

(a)

Clarification: It seems that the Tana specifically mentions 'Hodeh' first ...

ãàé îúçéìä ëôø çã åáàå òãéí, åàç"ë äåãä çã, äåå òãéí ÷åãîéï ìäåãàä, åîçééáéï úøåééäå ëôéìà ...

1.

Reason: ... because if he would first deny one of the cows and then admit to one, the witnesses would precede the admission and he would be Chayav Kefel on both scores ...

ãòãéí ëùáàå ìäòéã, òì ùðéäí äòéãå ...

2.

Reason (cont.): ... since the witnesses who came to testify testified on both.

àáì ëùäåãä çã ÷åãí, àò"ô ùàç"ë áàå òãéí, ñ"ì ãôèåø.

3.

Reason (concl.): But where he admits to one of them first, even though witnesses arrive afterwards, the Tana holds that he is Patur ...

åäëé îùîò áëåìä äê ùîòúà -ã'îåãä á÷ðñ åàç"ë áàå òãéí, ãôèåø ' .

(b)

Proof: ...as is implied in the entire Sugya - that 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'Achar-kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur'.

3)

TOSFOS DH TA'AN TA'ANAS AVAD VE'NISHBA VE'HODEH VE'CHAZAR VE'TA'AN TA'ANAS AVAD

úåñ' ã"ä èòï èòðú àáã åðùáò åäåãä åçæø åèòï èòðú àáã

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the text, and queries Rav Papa'ss She'eilah from the Mishnah cited earlier in the Perek.)

ðøàä ãì"â 'åäåãä' ...

(a)

Text: We need to erase the word 've'Hodeh' from the text' ...

ãàí äåãä, îéã äåéà áøùåúå ìäúçééá áàåðñéí îùòä ùðùáò ìù÷ø.

1.

Reason: ... because, once he admits, it is in his R'shus to be Chayav Onsin from the moment he swears falsely ...

åîä ùéçæåø åéèòåï ùåá 'àáã' ,àéï ëåôø ëìåí- åàôé' àîø 'ìàçø ùáåòä àáã

2.

Reason (cont.): ... and if he then claims that it is lost, he will not have denied anything - even if he says that it got lost after the Shevu'ah.

àìà ðøàä ãìà äåãä àìà ìàçø ùáåòä ùðéä.

(b)

Conclusion: We must therefore conclude that he admitted after the second Shevu'ah.

åîéäå úéîà, îàé ÷îáòéà ìéä ìøá ôôà ,äà îúðéúéï äéà, ãîééúé ìòéì (ãó ÷å.) 'äùáéò òìéå ä' ôòîéí áéï áôðé á"ã áéï ùìà áôðé á"ã åëôø òìéå, çééá òì ëì àçú åàçú '.

(c)

Question: What is Rav Papa's She'eilah, seeing as it is explicit in the Mishnah cited above (on Daf 106a) - 'If he made him swear five times whether in front of Beis-Din or not in front of Beis-Din, and he denied it, he is Chayav for each and every one'?

4)

TOSFOS DH VE'CHAZAR VE'TA'AN TA'ANAS GANAV VE'NISHBA

úåñ' ã"ä åçæø åèòï èòðú âðá åðùáò

(Summary: Tosfos queries this statement and elaborates.)

úéîä, äéàê äùáéòåäå áéú ãéï, ëéåï ùðôèø ááéú ãéï áùáåòä øàùåðä? ...

(a)

Question: How can the Beis-Din obligate him to swear, seeing as he became Patur in the first Beis-Din when he made the first Shevu'ah?

åàôéìå çæø åèòï ùìàçø ùáåòä øàùåðä ðâðá, î"î ìîä äùáéòåäå ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... and even if he claimed that it was stolen after the first Shevu'ah, why did they make him swear ...

åäìà îùáåòä øàùåðä ùðùáò ìù÷ø çééá áàåðñéí; ðîöà ùìà ëôø ëìåí áîä ùèòï ùðâðá àçø ùáåòä øàùåðä?

2.

Question (concl.): ... because, seeing as from the first Shevu'ah that he made falsely he became Chayav be'Onsin; it transpires that when he claimed that it was stolen after the first Shevu'ah, he did not deny anything?

åàéï ìåîø ùáàå ìôðé áéú ãéï àçø -ùìà éãòå ùëáø ðôèø åäùáéòåäå, åëéåï ùðùáò òì ôé áéú ãéï (àò"â) ùìà éãòå, îéçééá ëôì ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer by saying that the second Beis-Din made him swear, because they were not aware that he had already become Patur, and that now, since he swore via the Beis-Din who did not know, he is Chayav Kefel ...

åäà ãàîøéðï ìòéì ùëáø éöà áùáåòä øàùåðä...

1.

Refuted Answer (cont.): ... and that, when the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 107b) that he has already been Yotzei with the first Shevu'ah ...

äééðå ëùàåúå áéú ãéï òöîå äùáéòåäå åèòå ...

2.

Refuted Answer (concl.): ... it speaks where it is the same Beis-Din which made him swear, and they erred ...

ãàéï ñáøà ìçì÷ ëìì.

3.

Refutation: ... since there is no S'vara to differentiate.

åðøàä ãîééøé ãàîø ìéä áòì äô÷ãåï ùåá, ìàçø ùðîöà ù÷øï áùáåòä øàùåðä 'øöåðé ùúäà òìéå ùåîø çðí ëáúçéìä' ,åçæø åèòï 'ìàçø ùòùéúðé ùåîø çðí, ðâðá ...

(c)

Answer: And it speaks where, after the defendant was found to have sworn falsely the first time, the owner of the Pikadon once again asked him to become a Shomer Chinam, like he was before, and once again he claims that it was stolen after he appointed him ...

åôåèø òöîå, ùäøé ìà ðúçééá áàåðñéï áîä ùòùàå áôéøåù ù"ç.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and he exempts himself, seeing as he did not become Chayav Onsin, since he specifically made him a Shomer Chinam.

àáì úéîä, ãà"ë ìà äåé çã îîåðà ãäùúà äô÷éãå àöìå ôòí ùðéä ...

(d)

Question: The question remains however, that, if so, it is not 'one lot of money' now that he deposited it by him a second time ...

åîä ìé ì÷çå áéãå åðúï ìå, åî"ì ùìà ì÷çå àìà àîø ìéä áòåãå áéãå 'úäà òìéå ùåîø çðí ? '

1.

Question (cont.): ... because what difference does it make whether he takes it in his hand and gives it to him, or whether he does not take it but appoints him a Shomer Chinam whilst he still has it in his possession?

5)

TOSFOS DH U'TEREI K'FFEILI (This Dibur belongs before DH 'Ta'an')

úåñ' ã"ä åúøé ëôéìé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why he is not Patur, even though he became Pasul after the first false Shevu'ah.)

îçîú ùðòùä ôñåì áùáåòä ùðéä îùòä ùðîöà ù÷øï áøàùåðä, àéï ìôåèøå ...

(a)

Implied Question: One cannot exempt him on the grounds that he became Pasul before the second Shevu'ah by virtue of the fact that he was found to be a liar from the first Shevu'ah ...

îùåí ãçùåã òì äùáåòä îãøáðï äåà ãîéôñì ...

(b)

Answer: ... because someone who is suspect on a Shevu'ah is Pasul only mi'de'Rabanan ...

ëãîåëç áùáåòåú (ãó îä.) ã÷úðé 'åùëðâãå çùåã òì äùáåòä' - åîùîò äúí ãîãøáðï äåà ...

1.

Source: ... as is evident in Shevu'os (Daf 45a)) , where the Mishnah inserts 'Someone who is suspect on a Shevu'ah' - which the Sugya there implies is mi'de'Rabanan ...

åëéåï ãîãàåøééúà ùáåòúå ùáåòä, îçééá ëôì.

(c)

Answer (cont.): ... and since mi'd'Oraysa his Shevu'ah is a Shevu'ah, he is Chayav Kefel.

6)

TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR L'MI SHE'HA'PIKADON ETZLO

úåñ' ã"ä øáà àîø ìîé ùäô÷ãåï àöìå

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rava here with what he says in Bava Metzi'a.)

åà"ú, ãäëà ñáø øáà ã'àò"â ãàèøçéä ìáé ãéðà, î÷ðé ìéä ëôéìà ...

(a)

Question: Here Rava holds that even though he troubled the owner to go to Beis-Din, the owner is nevertheless Makneh him the Kefel ...

åáôø÷ äîô÷éã (á"î ãó ìä.) âáé 'ääåà âáøà ãàô÷éã ëéôé âáé çáøéä' ,÷àîø øáà 'ùôéø òáã ø 'ðçîï ãìà àäãø ìéä àúéåáúéä - äëà àèøçéä ìáé ãéðà ,äúí ìà àèøçéä ìáé ãéðà?

1.

Question (cont.): ... whereas in Perek ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 35a) in connection with 'A man who deposited rings with his friend', Rava says that Rav Nachman was justified in not answering his question, since 'Here he troubled him to go to the Beis-Din, whilst there he did not'?

åéù ìåîø, ãäúí ùàðé, ãàèøçéä ìáé ãéðà åìà ôøò ìéä îéãé, àìà øá ðçîï àâáééä ìàôãðà îéðéä ...

(b)

Answer: It is different there, seeing as he troubled him to go to Beis-Din and did not pay him anything ...

àáì äëà, àò"â ãàèøçéä ìáé ãéðà ÷öú -ùðùáò ìå úçéìä, îëì î÷åí äøé ùéìí ìå ìáñåó åìà àèøç áé ãéðà. äìëê î÷ðé ìéä ëôéìà.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, even though he did slightly inconvenience him to go to Beis-Din - by swearing first, nevertheless, he did pay him in the end and did not trouble him to go to Beis-Din - which is why he is Makneh him the Kefel.

108b----------------------------------------108b

7)

TOSFOS DH TAV'O SHOMER VE'HODEH TAV'UHU BA'ALIM VEHEIVI EIDIM

úåñ' ã"ä úáòå ùåîø åäåãä úáòåäå áòìéí åëôø åäáéàå òãéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and asks why the Gemara does not ask with regard to Keren, even if witnesses did not arrive.)

îùîò ãäåãä ìàçø ùàéï áòì äãáø, ãìà äåéà äåãàä.

(a)

Inference: This implies that he admitted to somebody else who is not involved in the case, in which case his admission is invalid.

åúéîä, àîàé ìà áòé ìòðéï ÷øï âåôéä áùìà áàå òãéí, àé äåéà äåãàä àé ìàå? åàîàé ð÷è 'åäáéàå òãéí' -îùîò ãìà îáòéà àìà ìòðéï ëôì?

(b)

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask about the Keren itself - even where the witnesses did not arrive - whether his admission is valid or not? Why does it mention that they brought witnesses, thereby implying that it is only asking about the Kefel?

åé"ì, ãîùåí ãà'÷øï ìà äåé îöé ìîéôùè äà ãôùéè 'àí áù÷ø ðùáò ìà ðôèø äâðá ' ... .

(c)

Answer: Because with regard to the Keren, it could not have resolved that what it does now - from 'Im be'Sheker Nishba, Lo Niftar ha'Ganav'.

8)

TOSFOS DH VE'LO HUNICHUHU MAHU

úåñ' ã"ä åìà äðéçåäå îäå

(Summary: Tosfos cites Rashi's Kashya on Rava according to the current text.)

ä÷ùä á÷åðè' à'äê âéøñà ãâøñéðï 'àí áàîú ðùáò, ìà ðôèø âðá' ... ãà"ë, îàé áòé øáà 'òîã ìéùáò ìù÷ø åìà äðéçåäå, îäå? '

(a)

Question: Rashi asks on the text that reads 'If he swore truthfully, the Ganav ought not to be Patur' - that if so, why does the Gemara ask what the Din will be if he stood up to swear falsely, but they did not let him ...

äùúà ðùáò ìù÷ø îîù ãàéñúìé÷ ìéä îáé ãéðà, ãúå ìà øîéà òìéä, ë"ù äéëà ãìà ðùáò, ãòìéä øîéà ìùìåîé?

1.

Question (cont.): Because if where he actually swore falsely, where he is removed from the Beis-Din, since he is no longer obligated, how much more so where he has not sworn, where he remains obligated to swear?

åéù îúøöéí -ãëéåï ãìà äðéçåäå ìéùáò, îçì ìå, åäøé ðôèø ðîé ùåîø ëàéìå ùåîø ðùáò áàîú...

(b)

Answer: Some commentaries answer that, since they did not let him swear, he is Mochel him, and the Shomer is Patur as if he would have sworn truthfully.

åúå ìà øîéà òìéä, åìäëé ÷áòé ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, he is no longer obligated, and hence the Gemara asks.

åìàå îéìúà äéà, ãîùåí ãìà äðéçåäå ìéùáò ìà îçì ìå, åìà îéôèø ùåîø áäëé.

(c)

Refutation: This is incorrect however, since it is not because they did not allow him to swear that the owner is Mochel him, and this does not let the Shomer off the hook.

åëï ôåñ÷ áä"â -ãàò"ô ùîçì ìå äùáåòä ìðúáò, áùáéì ëê ìà îçì ìå îîåï ìâîøé ...

(d)

Support: The B'hag too Paskens - that even where the owner is Mochel the Shevu'ah to the defendant, he is not Mochel the money completely ...

åëì ùëï äéëà ãìà îçì ìå ùáåòä, àìà ùìà äðéçå ìéùáò áàåúä ùòä.

1.

Support (cont.): ... how much more so where he is not Mochel the Shevu'ah - and it is only temporarily that he does allow him to swear.

9)

TOSFOS DH NIGN'VAH BE'ONEIS

úåñ' ã"ä ðâðáä áàåðñ

(Summary: Tosfos defines 'Geneivah be'Oneis'.)

ðøàä ãàéï ùåí âðéáä ÷øåéä àåðñ àìà áìñèéí îæåééï, ëãôéøù á÷åðè'.

(a)

Clarification: It would seem that no case of Geneivah is considered an Oneis except for that of armed robbers, as Rashi explains.

åëï îåëç ìòéì áäëåðñ (ãó ðæ.).

(b)

Reference: ... and so is evident above, in 'ha'Koneis' (Daf 57a).

10)

TOSFOS DH LE'BANAV O LE'ECHAV

úåñ' ã"ä ìáðéå àå ìàçéå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies whose sons and brothers and elaborates.)

ðøàä ìáðéå ùì âæìï àå ìàçéå ùì âæìï - ëìåîø áúçéìä ìáðéå àí éù ìå ...

(a)

Clarification: This refers to the sons and the brothers of the Gazlan - first to his sons, if he has sons ...

ãäí ÷åãîéí ìëì àãí áçì÷ äîâéòå; åðçùá àåúå ëàéìå îú äåà åäøé áðéå éåøùéí çì÷å òí àçéå, åäí àéï áàéí îëçå àìà îëç àáåä ãàáà ...

1.

Reason: ... since they take precedence over everybody else in the portion to which he is entitled; and he is considered as if he is dead, in which case his sons inherit his portion together with his brothers, who do not inherit because of him, but rather because of their grandfather ...

ëãàîø áñåó îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷ðè.) "úçú àáåúéê éäéå áðéê" ...

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara states at the end of 'Mi she'Meis' (Bava Basra, Daf 159a) based on the Pasuk "Tachas Avosecha Yih'yu Banecha".

äìëê àò"ô ùàéï ìàáéäï áäï ëìåí -ùäøé éù ìå ìäçæéø âæéìä...

(b)

Conclusion: Consequently, even though their father receives nothing from the property, seeing as he is obligated to return the theft ...

àô"ä äí ÷åãîéï áçì÷å -îääåà èòîà ãá"á...

1.

Conclusion (cont.): Nevertheless they are the first to inherit his portion - based on the reason cited in Bava Basra ...

àå ìàçéå ëùàéï ìå áðéí.

(c)

Clarification (cont.): .. or to his brothers, if he has no sons.

11)

TOSFOS DH LOVEH U'BA'ALEI-CHOV BA'IN VE'NIFRA'IN

úåñ' ã"ä ìåä åá"ç áàéï åðôøòéï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and elaborates.)

ðøàä ìôøù -ìåä òì ä÷ø÷ò ùìå îàçøéí, àôé' áìà àôåúé÷é...

(a)

Clarification: This means that he borrowed from others against his own Karka, even without an Apotiki (a security) ...

ã÷ø÷ò îùåòáã ìáòì çåá; åàç"ë ðåúï ÷ø÷ò ùìå ìáðéå àå ìàçéå áòáåø äâæéìä -åëâåï ùàéï äâæéìä ÷ééîú ...

1.

Reason: ... since Karka is Meshu'bad to one's creditor; And he then gives his Karka to his sons or his brothers on account of the theft - assuming that the theft is no longer available ...

åçåæøéí á"ç åðôøòéï îàåúä ÷ø÷ò, àò"â ãéù ìå ùàø ðëñéí áîä ìôøåò.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): ... and the creditors then come and claim it, even though he has other property with which to pay.

åðøàä ãàéï öøéê ìåîø áùòú ðúéðúå ìáðéå àå ìàçéå 'ò"î ùéôøòå áòìé çåá îëí' ...

(c)

Explanation: And it seems that he does he need to declare, when giving the money to his sons or to his brothers, that he is giving it on condition that his creditors will claim it from them ...

ãáìàå äëé àéï éëåìéï ìæëåú ùìà îãòúå.

1.

Reason: ... since in any event, they are not able to acquire it without his consent.

)åàí äâæéìä áòéï, öøéê ìôøù ùéìåä òìéä åéòùðä àôåúé÷é ìîìåä åéçæéøðä(

(d)

Conclusion: But if the theft is available, he must either declare that the loan is against the stolen article or make it an Apotiki for the creditor and return it ... (continued on the next page)