1)

TOSFOS DH VE'HALAH OMER EINI YODE'A

úåñ' ã"ä åäìä àåîø àéðé éåãò

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

ôé' àí äô÷éã àöìé, àáì 'àéðé éåãò àí äçæøúé ìê' ,çééá ìë"ò, ëîå øéùà ãîúðé'...

(a)

Clarification: 'Whether he deposited it by me', but if he would say 'I do not know whether I returned it to you', he would be Chayav according to everybody, in accordance with the Reisha of the Mishnah ...

åìñéôà ãîúðé' äåà ãîãîä ìä áñîåê.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And it is to the Seifa that the Gemara will shortly compare it (the current case).

2)

TOSFOS DH RAV NACHMAN VE'REBBI YOCHANAN AMRI PATUR

úåñ' ã"ä øá ðçîï åøáé éåçðï àîøé ôèåø

(Summary: Tosfos rules like Rav Nachman and discusses whether one is nevertheless Chayav a Shevu'as Hesses.)

å÷é"ì ëøá ðçîï áãéðé.

(a)

Halachah: We Pasken like Rav Nachman in money matters.

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãîùáéòéï àåúå ùáåòú äéñú ùàéï éåãò... ,

(b)

Halachah: Rashi explains that one nevertheless makes him swear a Shevu'as Hesses that he doesn't know ...

ãìà òãéó îàéìå äéä ëåôø ìâîøé.

1.

Reason: ... since it is no different than if he were to completely deny the claim.

åðøàä ãñåáø á÷åðèøñ ëìéùðà ÷îà ãøá ðçîï ãôø÷ ùáåòú äãééðéï (ùáåòåú î: åùí îà. ã"ä îàï) ...

(c)

Explanation #1: Evidently, Rashi holds like the first Lashon of Rav Nachman in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 40b & 41a [See Tosfos there DH 'Ma'an']) ...

ãà'øéùà ã÷úðé äúí ' "îðä ìé áéãê" " ; àéï ìê áéãé ëìåí" ,ôèåø ... '÷àîø øá ðçîï 'åîùáéòéï àåúå ùáåòú äéñú' .

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): That Rav Nachman says 'u'Mashbi'in oso Shevu'as Hesses' in connection with the Reisha - Ein lach be'Yadi K'lum', Patur - and Rav Nachman rules 'Mashbi'in oso Shevu'as Hesses'.

àáì àéëà ãîúðé ìä à'ñéôà à'îðä ìé áéãê' ,åà"ì 'äï' ;ìîçø à"ì 'úðäå ìé! ' , 'ðúúéå ìê' ôèåø...

(d)

Explanation #2: Others however, learn it on the Seifa - where Shimon initially admits that he has Reuven's Manah, only where he later claims that he paid him ...

ããå÷à áñéôà, ãàéëà ãøøà ãîîåðà ÷àîø ø"ð ãîùáéòéï àåúå ùáåòú äéñú, àáì à'øéùà ìà.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it is specifically there that Rav Nachman obligates him to make a Shevu'as Hesses, but not in the Reisha.

åëï ðøàä äìëä ëìùåï äøàùåï, ãìéùðà ÷îà ñúîà ãâîøà ÷àîø, àáì ìéùðà áúøà øá çáéáà äåà ãîúðé ìä.

(e)

Proof #1 for Explanation #1: The Halachah however, is like the first Lashon, which is learned in the Gemara S'tam, whilst the second Lashon is learned by Rav Chaviva.

åáô"÷ ãá"î (ãó ä. åùí ã"ä àéï) âáé 'ääåà øòéà' îééúé ðîé ìéùðà ÷îà ãø"ð.

(f)

Proof #2 for Explanation #1: And in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 5a [See Tosfos DH 'Ein']) in connection with 'That shepherd', the Gemara also cites the first Lashon of Rav Nachman.

àáì ø"ú àåîø ãîñô÷ àéï ìçééáå ùáåòä, äéëà ãìéëà ãøøà ãîîåðà, ëéåï ùéù á' ìùåðåú.

(g)

Proof for Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam maintains that one cannot obligate him to swear from a Safek, there where there is no 'D'rara de'Mamona' (where he did not previously admit that he owes him), seeing as there are two Leshonos.

åáô"÷ ãá"î (ùí) ìàå ãå÷à ð÷è ìéùðà ÷îà...

(h)

Refutation of Proof #2: And in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Ibid.) it mentions the first Lashon La'av Davka (not specifically) ...

ãäà äúí àéëà ãøøà ãîîåðà, ãàúå ñäãé ãàëéì úøé îéðééäå.

1.

Proof: ... bearing in mind that it is a case of 'D'rara de'Mamona', since witnesses came that he ate two of them.

åùîò ø"é ùø"ú äéä îðéç ìãééðéï ìçééá äéëà ãìéëà ãøøà ãîîåðà, ø÷ ùäåà ìà äéä øåöä ìãåï ëï.

(i)

Qualifying Rabeinu Tam: The Ri heard that, in fact, Rabeinu Tam allowed the Dayanim to obligate a Shevu'ah, even where there is no 'D'rara de'Mamona', only he himself did not want to rule like that.

åäéëà ãîåãä ùçééá ìå àìà ùèåòï ìå 'ôøòúé' ,øàä ø"é àú ø"ú ùçééá ùáåòä...

(j)

Chidush: And where he agrees that he is Chayav only he claims that he paid, the Ri saw that Rabeinu Tam obligated him to swear ...

àò"â ãìéëà òãéí áääéà äåãàä, åäéä éëåì ìëôåø áùòä ùèòï 'ôøòúé' ...

1.

Implied Question: ... despite the fact that there were no witnesses regarding his admission, and he could therefore have denied it when he claimed that he had paid.

åàîø ãçùéá ùôéø ãøøà ãîîåðà ëîå ääéà ã'ðúúéå ìê' ,àò"â ãáäê äåãàä éù òãéí.

2.

Answer: ... and he explained that it is justifiably considered 'D'rara de'Mamona', just as in the case where he claimed that he had returned it - despite the fact that he admitted there in front of two witnesses.

åìôé ôùè äìëä îùîò ãìîàï ãîúðé à'ñéôà, çùéá ìä 'ãøøà ãîîåðà' îùåí ãàéëà òãéí áäåãàä ùà"ì àúîåì 'äï' ,åàéï éëåì òúä ìëôåø.

(k)

Refutation: Strictly speaking however, it seems that the opinion that learns it on the Seifa considers it 'D'rara de'Mamona because there are witnesses present when he admits, and that he is therefore not able to subsequently deny.

åøá äàé âàåï ôé' ëîå ëï ãìà îùáéòéï ìéä äéëà ãìéëà 'ãøøà ãîîåðà' .

(l)

Support for Rabeinu Tam: Rav Hai Ga'on too, maintains that we only make him swear where there is no 'D'rara de'Mamona'.

åîéäå îùîúéðï ìéä òì úðàé ùéäà áùîúà àí äåà çééá åàéðå îåãä ìå.

1.

Conclusion: Beis-Din do, however, place him is Cherem on condition that the Cherem will take effect in the event that he is Chayav and fails to admit it.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHE'LO LE'DA'AS MINYAN NAMI LO TZARICH

úåñ' ã"ä ùìà ìãòú îðéï ðîé ìà öøéê

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this ruling with the Gemara in 'ha'Koneis'.)

åäà ãàîø ø' àìòæø ìòéì áäëåðñ (ã' ðæ.) 'äëì öøéëéï ãòú áòìéí çåõ îäùáú àáéãä' ...

(a)

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Elazar said earlier in ha'Koneis (Daf 57a) that everyone needs the consent of the owner except for Hashavas Aveidah ...

àéï ö"ì ãôìéâ à'äà ...

(b)

Answer: ... we do not need to say that he argues with this Sugya ...

àìà éù ìôøù 'äëì öøéëéï ãòú áòìéí' -äéëà ãäåé ìãòú çåõ îäùáú àáéãä, ùàéï öøéê àôé' äåé ìãòú, ùéåãò ùàáãä ìå àåúä àáéãä.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... because what he meant was that everyone needs the consent of the owner' - provided he knows about it, 'except for Hashavas Aveidah' - which doesn't, even if he knows that he lost that article.

118b----------------------------------------118b

4)

TOSFOS DH MAI LA'AV BE'SELA ETC. U'BIT'LE SHE'LO LE'DA'AS

úåñ' ã"ä îàé ìàå áñìò ëå' åáèìä ùìà ìãòú

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara presents the two cases in this way.)

ñúí ëéñ øâéì ìäéåú ìãòú, ëéåï ùòùåé ìîùîù áëéñå, åñúí èìä øâéì ìäéåú ùìà ìãòú ...

(a)

Clarification: S'tam purse is generally with the owner's knowledge, since one tends to check one's pockets regularly, whereas S'tam lamb is generally without his knowledge ...

ìäëé ð÷è áäà ìãòú åáäà ùìà ìãòú.

1.

Consequence: ... which explains why the Gemara mentions 'with his knowledge' by the former, and 'without his knowledge' by the latter.

5)

TOSFOS DH CHAMEISH MIBA'I

úåñ' ã"ä çîù îáòéà

(Summary: Tosfos refers to his explanation in Shabbos.)

îôåøù áîñ' ùáú áôø÷ áîä àùä (ãó ñ: åùí ã"ä äùúà) âáé ñðãì äîñåîø '

(a)

Reference: It is explained in Bameh Ishah' (Shabbos, Daf 60b, DH 'Hashta'), in connection with the Sugya of 'Sandal ha'Mesumar'.

HADRAN ALACH HA'GOZEL BASRA U'SELIKA MASECHES BAVA KAMA