TOSFOS DH "Ain Osin"

תוס' ד"ה "אין עושין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why this is forbidden, and its ramifications.)

פי' בקונטרס לפי שכבר נטמאה העיסה ביד ע"ה וכהן יסמוך על הגבל שהוא חבר ויהא סבור שהחלה טהורה


Explanation: Rashi explains that this is because the dough already became impure in the hands of the Am ha'Aretz. The Kohen will rely on the one kneading the dough because he is a Chaver, and will mistakenly think the Chalah is pure.

ולפירושו אם יפריש ממקום אחר על אותה עיסה חלתו טהורה


According to his explanation, if he will separate Chalah from a different place on this dough, his Chalah will be pure (as the dough he is separating from is pure).

ונראה דבכל ענין אסור דכל עיקר לא התירו אלא כדי חייו ולא התירו אלא היכא שנוטל שכר מכל העיסה אבל משום שכר חלה גרידא משום ההיא פורתא לא התירו דחיישינן דלמא נגע.


Opinion: It appears that this would be forbidden in any case. They only permitted the Chaver to work with the Am ha'Aretz because he needs to support himself, and only permitted this when he gets paid for kneading all of the dough. However, just to receive the small amount of Chalah they did not permit his involvement, as we suspect that the Am ha'Aretz touched the dough (afterwards). (Note: See the Maharsha who explains that Tosfos has another reason to say that this was forbidden.)


TOSFOS DH "u'Meinichin"

תוס' ד"ה "ומניחין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the second case did not also say the olives were placed in baskets.)

נראה דלא נקט כפישא ואנחותא


Implied Question: It did not give a case of the baskets made of worn out leather jugs (as stated before). (Note: Why not?)

לפי שהן פשוטי כלי עץ ולא חזו לזיתים.


Answer: This is because they have the law of simple wooden vessels, and are not fit for olives.


TOSFOS DH "Ain Odrin"

תוס' ד"ה "אין עודרין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we find a case in Sanhedrin where this is permitted.)

והא דקאמר בפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כו.) גבי כהן וחורש יכול לומר לו אגיסטון אני בתוכה


Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (26a) stated that when someone suspected a person of being a Kohen who was digging on Shemitah, the person could say I am merely an Agiston. (Note: What is this valid excuse that our Gemara does not mention?)

לא כמו שפי' בקונטרס שכיר לנכרי


Opinion#1: Rashi's explanation, that he is a hired worker for the Nochri, is incorrect.

דהא משמע הכא דאסור ולא מסתבר לחלק בין חנם לבשכר


Implied Question: This is because our Gemara clearly implies this is forbidden, and it is not rational to differentiate between doing so for free or for pay.

אלא מפר"ת אגיסטון בקרקע שמקבלים מן המלך לפרוע כך וכך תבואה בשנה כדאמר התם לעיל מינה רבי ינאי מכריז פוקו וזרעו ארנונא בשביעית ושמא סכנת נפשות איכא אם לא יפרעו מס למלך


Opinion#2: Rather, Rabeinu Tam explains that an Agiston is referring to someone who has to work land that is given to him by the king, in order that he will pay a certain amount of produce to the king every year. This is as stated earlier in the Gemara there (in Sanhedrin ibid.), Rebbi Yanai announced that people should go out and plant for the tax on Shemitah. Perhaps there was danger to people's life if they did not pay the tax (which is why he announced it was permitted).

אי נמי קסבר יש קנין לנכרי בארץ להפקיע משביעית


Alternatively, perhaps he holds that a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael that takes the law of Shevi'is away from the land.

אי נמי שביעית בזמן הזה דרבנן אע"ג דמדרבנן אסור לנכרי אחר גבי מלך התירו.


Alternatively, perhaps this was because Shemitah today is only Rabbinic in nature. Even though this would still be forbidden according to Rabbinic law if one was working the land for another private Nochri, they permitted doing so for the king.


TOSFOS DH "Ashrata"

תוס' ד"ה "אשרתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the apparent argument between the Yerushalmi and Bavli regarding saying Shalom to a Nochri.)

בירושלמי איכא למאן דאמר דהיינו חרש בה טבאות ולבתר שמיטה נסיבא לה מינך ולישראל אמרינן יישר


Observation: The Yerushalmi says that there is an opinion that this means, "Plow it well, and after Shemitah we will take some from you." To the Jew he says, "You should be straight."

ואיכא למ"ד דלעכו"ם אמר יישר ולישראל שלום עליכם משמע דלכ"ע לעכו"ם אסור לומר שלום עליך


Another opinion says that to the Nochri he says, "You should be straight," and to the Jew he says, "Shalom Aleichem." This implies that according to all opinions, it would be forbidden to say to a Nochri, "Shalom Alecha."

ודלא כש"ס שלנו הכא דלא אסרינן לעובד כוכבים אלא כפילת שלום


This is unlike our Gemara that only forbids doubling Shalom to a Nochri (done when replying, not greeting him with the word Shalom).

ונראה דלפי' הירושלמי דמחזיקים ידי נכרים בשביעית ושואלים בשלומם חדא מילתא היא שאומר לו חרש בה טבאות.


It appears that according to the Yerushalmi, holding the hands (i.e. supporting) of Nochrim who are working the land on Shemitah and asking if they are at peace is the same thing, meaning that one can say to him, "Plow it well." (Note: This is as opposed to the Bavli which explicitly states, "Now that we know we can strengthen them, we can obviously give them Shalom!" See Maharsha.)


TOSFOS DH "Shalma l'Mar"

תוס' ד"ה "שלמא למר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi as to the intent of Rav Kahana's greeting of "Shalom" to a Nochri.)

פי' בקונטרס ולא היה מתכוין לברכו אלא לבו היה לרבו


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he did not intend to bless him, but rather intended that this should be for his Rebbi.

וצ"ע שלא יהא בזה גונב דעת הבריות


Question: This is difficult, as this seems to be Geneivas Da'as (i.e. having someone believe you are wishing him well, when you are not, in order that he should give you good treatment).

ועל חנם פי' כן דלא קאמר אלא דאין כופלין לו שלום.


Explanation#2: He had no reason to give this (difficult) explanation, as he only said that we do not double Shalom back to a Nochri. (Note: Being that Rav Kahana only greeted him with Shalom once, there is no reason to say he did not intend this greeting for the Nochri.)



TOSFOS DH "ha'Omer"

תוס' ד"ה "האומר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why each chapter is next to the other, and the difference found in the arrangement of the Yerushalmi.)

בירושלמי תנא התקבל אחר הניזקין ואחריו מי שאחזו


Observation: In the Yerushalmi, the chapter "Hiskabel" is stated after "ha'Nizakin," and after "Hiskabel" is ""Mi she'Ochzo."

וכן נראה לר"ת דהניזקין תנא בתר השולח משום דאיירי במילי דהויא מפני תיקון העולם והשתא הדר למילתיה דאיירי בשליחות


It seems to Rabeinu Tam that "ha'Nizakin" should indeed be after "ha'Sholei'ach," as it discusses things that are due to "Tikun ha'Olam" (a major subject in "ha'Sholei'ach"). Now ("Hiskabel") it is going back to what it discussed previously (before the topic of Tikun ha'Olam came up) regarding Shelichus (sending Gitin via a messenger).

ואיידי דאיירי באומר לשנים תנו או לשלשה כתבו ותנו תנא בתריה מי שאחזו דאיירי נמי באומר כתבו


Being that it is now discussing a case where the husband says to two people to give a Get or to three people to write and give a Get, it states after this chapter "Mi she'Ochzo," which discusses the husband saying to write a Get.

ואיידי דתנא במי שאחזו במגורשת ואינה מגורשת תנא בתריה הזורק דקתני בה מחצה על מחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת.


Being that it states a case in "Mi she'Ochzo" where someone is considered "divorced and not divorced" (it is unclear whether or not the divorce was valid), it states after this the chapter of "ha'Zorek," which discusses a case where a Get thrown that landed equally close to the husband and wife is ruled as "divorced and not divorced."


TOSFOS DH "Ha Shavisei"

תוס' ד"ה "הא שויתיה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Acha's understanding of the Mishnah at this point in the Gemara.)

השתא סלקא דעתין דלא איצטריך למיתני התקבל אלא למידק דכי היכי דהתקבל דוקא בלא שויתיה שליח הולך נמי דוקא בלא שויתיה שליח.


Explanation: The Gemara now thinks that the Mishnah only had to say "Hiskabel" to point out that just as "Hiskabel" is without (her) making him a messenger, so too the case of "Holech" is without (her) making him a messenger.



תוס' ד"ה "דילמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer.)

אינו מגיה אלא כלומר דילמא איכא דתני הילך.


Explanation: The Gemara is not replacing "Holech" in our Mishnah with "Heilech," but rather is saying that perhaps there is a Tana who says that the Mishnah should read "Heilech." (Note: This is the explanation of the Maharsha in Tosfos. However, from the Tosfos Ha'Rosh it seems that Tosfos means that there is a Tana that says a similar law using the word Heilech, not Holech.)


TOSFOS DH "Ish l'Kabalah"

תוס' ד"ה "איש לקבלה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

משום דבגט אשה בהולכה לא שייכא ואיש בקבלה משום הכי קבעי.


Explanation: The Gemara's question is based on the fact that a woman cannot make a messenger to give a Get (as she does not give the Get), and a man likewise cannot make a messenger to accept a Get (as he does not accept a Get). This is why the Gemara asks whether a man can be a messenger to accept a Get for a woman, and whether or not a woman can be a messenger to give a Get to a woman.