TOSFOS DH "Kol Mamon"

תוס' ד"ה "כל ממון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya was allowed to redeem him for more than his value.)

כי איכא סכנת נפשות פודין שבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן כדאמרינן בפרק השולח (לעיל דף מד. /מז./) גבי מוכר עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים כ"ש הכא דאיכא קטלא


Answer#1: (Note: Tosfos is bothered by the law that we do not redeem prisoners for more than their value. How was Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya allowed to bypass that law?) When there is a danger to the prisoner's life, we allow the redemption of the prisoner to be even more than their true value. This is as stated earlier (47a) regarding someone who sells himself and his children to Nochrim, and certainly applies here that his life is in danger.

אי נמי משום דמופלג בחכמה היה.


Answer#2: Alternatively, it could be this was permitted here because he was tremendously smart.


TOSFOS DH "Aval b'Shtar"

תוס' ד"ה "אבל בשטר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between our Gemara and the Gemara in Kesuvos.)

אאשה נמי קאי כדמוכח בסמוך


Explanation: Their argument is also on the case of the woman (55b, 58b), as is apparent from the Gemara later (58b).

והא דאמר בפרק מי שהיה נשוי (כתובות דף צה.) כתב לראשון ולא חתמה לו ולשני וחתמה לו איבדה כתובתה משמע דבחד לוקח יכולה לומר נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי


Implied Question: The Gemara says in Kesuvos (95a) that if he wrote a sale document (for one of his fields) for the first person and she did not sign it, and he then wrote a sale document (for a different field) for the second person and she did sign it, she has lost her Kesuvah. This implies that when there is only one buyer she can say that she merely agreed to make her husband happy (even if she wrote a document). (Note: Our Gemara states that if she wrote a document it would be a valid sale, and she could not claim that she merely agreed in order to make her husband happy.)

התם כשחתמה על שטר של בעלה והכא כשכתבה שטר בפני עצמה


Answer#1: The case there is when she signed on the sale document written by her husband. Here the case is where she wrote the document herself.

ועוד דחתמה דהתם שנתרצית במכירת הבעל או שמחלה לו השעבוד אבל הכא כשכתבה שטר מכירה שהיא מוכרת לו


Answer#2: Additionally, the case where she signed there is where she agreed to the sale by her husband or decided to forgo his obligation to her. However, here when she wrote this document, she wrote that she is selling the field.

ולמאי דמפרש ה"ר אליעזר משנז"א דרב ושמואל פליגי הכא באחריות טעות סופר הוא דשמואל לטעמיה דאמר בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יד.) דאחריות לאו טעות סופר הוא בשטרי מקח וממכר ורב סבר אחריות ט"ס הוא ובסתם שטר ככתבה לו אחריות דמי


Answer#3: Rebbi Eliezer mi'Shanza's understands that Rav and Shmuel are arguing here regarding whether or not the omission of Acharyus in a document is considered a scribe's mistake. Shmuel holds as he explicitly states in Bava Metzia (14a) that it is not a mistake in sale documents, while Rav holds it is a mistake, and in a general document it is as if Achrayus is written as a condition.

וההיא דכתובות כשפירשה דלא קבלה אחריות מידי.


Accordingly, the Gemara in Kesuvos (ibid.) could be talking about a case where she explicitly stated that she is not taking any Achrayus (unlike our case where this is an argument between Rav and Shmuel).



TOSFOS DH "k'Gon Zeh"

תוס' ד"ה "כגון זה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding how to interpret our Gemara's statement, "In such a case we make a claim etc.")

פירש בקונטרס אפילו למ"ד בב"ב דאין טוענין הכא מודה


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that even according to the opinion in Bava Basra that we do not make claims (for a buyer or inheritor), here he would agree that we do.

ולא מצינו שם פלוגתא


Implied Question: We do not find any argument on this topic in Bava Basra. (Note: Why does Rashi say that even etc.?)

אלא אמרי' בפרק לא יחפור (ב"ב דף כג.) טוענין ליורש תנינא טוענין ללוקח תנינא וכגון זה דאמר ה"פ אפילו כגון זה


Opinion#2: Rather, we say in Bava Basra (23a) that we find a Beraisa that states that we make a claim for an inheritor, and another Beraisa stating that we make a claim for a buyer. When our Gemara says, "In a case like this we make a claim" it means that even in a case like this we would make a claim.

דסלקא דעתך דהדין עם הבעלים דמה שלא מיחו מפני יראת הסיקריקון.


One might think that the owner is right, and he did not protest the ownership earlier due to his fear of the Sikrikun (Nochrim who stole his land and sold it to the first buyer).


TOSFOS DH "Anan Yahavinan"

תוס' ד"ה "אנן יהבינן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the people who ran away should still have rights to the land.)

והא דאמרינן בפ' חזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף נד:) גבי דורא דרעוותא דבני באגי דמטמרי הוו ומלכא אמר מאן דיהיב טסקא ליכול ארעא והפסידו הקרקע לגמרי


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (54b) states regarding a place called Dura Dira'usa that the fields of a valley there were originally owned by people who hid themselves. The king had said that whoever is willing to pay a tax on the land can use it. This caused the original owners to lose any rights (even Halachic rights) to the land. (Note: Why does our Gemara treat the people who ran away as if they are the rightful owners?)

התם היו נשמטים מלפרוע אבל כאן שהבעלים הלכו ולא להשמט דין הוא דכל הנהו שני מאן דיהיב טסקא אכיל וכי הדרי אהדרי ארעא למרא.


Answer: The Gemara there is discussing people who ran away because they did not want to pay the tax. However, in our Gemara the people went away for other reasons, and did not run away from (i.e. because of) paying for the land. It therefore is understandable that whoever paid for the years they were away had the right to use the land (as this is the typical agreement in this situation, see Rashi DH "mi'Bnei Baga"). However, when the owners come back, the rights to the land revert to the original owners.


TOSFOS DH "l'Michtav"

תוס' ד"ה "למכתב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains who Rav Papa wanted to take money from in this incident.)

לא אבני באגי דקביל מינהון דמה להן לפרוע מה שהקדים זה אלא אמרוותא קמאי.


Explanation: He wasn't going to write a document saying that he could seize money from the other landowners in the valley, as why should they pay what the person who worked the land already paid? Rather, it refers to the original owners (who ran away, see Maharsha).


TOSFOS DH "Re'via b'Karka"

תוס' ד"ה "רביע בקרקע"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara based on a question on Shmuel.)

פירוש רביע במעות שנתן יתן לו ואותו רביע בקרקע או במעות יתן לו דהיינו חמישית בקרקע כדמפר' דנכי חומשא זבין


Explanation#1: A quarter of the money means one quarter of the amount that he paid for the land. The quarter of land or money that he is giving him is actually one fifth of the land, as is explained that the Nochri will sell the land for twenty percent less (than its true value).

ותימה דמאי פריך מברייתא דקתני רביע בקרקע או רביע במעות לשמואל דאמר רביע בקרקע שהוא שליש במעות דנכי ריבעא זבין הא איכא לפרושי נמי איפכא דרביע הקרקע יתן לו או בקרקע או במעות דהיינו שליש מעות


Question: This is difficult. What is the question from the braisa that states, "either one quarter of the land or one quarter of the money?" According to Shmuel who says that one quarter of the land is one third of the money, as the Nochri gives a twenty-five percent discount, we can explain the opposite! This would mean that when the Beraisa says he should be given one quarter of the land either in actual land or in money, it would mean one third of the money (exactly as stated by Shmuel)!

ואית ספרים דגרסי בדרב ובברייתא רביע בקרקע שהוא רביע במעות


Explanation#2: There are Sefarim that have the text in Rav and in the Beraisa that this refers to one quarter of the land which is one quarter of the money.

וכן ר"ח ומפרש רביע בקרקע שנתן דמים עליה דהיינו חומש דעל ארבע חומשים נתן דמים דנכי חומשא זבין.


This is also the text of Rabeinu Chananel. He explains that one quarter of the land that he gave money for refers to a fifth. He gave money for four fifths of the land, because the Nochri sold it to him for twenty percent less than what it is worth.