1) TOSFOS DH Kasuv Echad Omer Sheshes Yamim Tochal Matzos
úåñôåú ã"ä ëúåá àçã àåîø ùùú éîéí úàëì îöåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we expound two other laws from this verse.)
áñåó òøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ÷ë.) ãøéù îéðéä îä ùáéòé øùåú àó ùùä øùåú îùåí ãëúéá åáéåí äùáéòé
(a) Implied Question #1: In Pesachim (120a, a Beraisa) expounds 'just like the seventh day is Reshus (optional to eat Matzah), also six days are Reshus, because it says "uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i"!'
åáñåó ôø÷ ùðé ãçâéâä (ãó éç.) ðîé ãøùéðï îä ùáéòé òöåø àó ëåìï òöåøéí
(b) Implied Question #2: In Chagigah (18a) we expound "just like the seventh day is withheld (from Melachah), also all the days [of Pesach] are withheld!" (This is unlike Tosfos in Chagigah (18a), who says that this Drashah is a mere Asmachta, for the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Rabanan - Taharas ha'Kodesh.)
åùîà úøúé ùîòú îéðä:
(c) Answer: Perhaps we learn both of these from [the verse. Why does Tosfos say "both"? There are three Drashos! Matzpas Eisan asks that we rejected R. Yochanan ben Zakai's source, for we need the verse for Abaye's Drashah! Yashar v'Tov answers that we learn the Drashah here about the Omer from "Sheshes Yamim" alone. The other two Drashos are from the Hekesh of Sheshes Yamim to uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i."
2) TOSFOS DH v'Eimasai she'Yirtzeh Yavi
úåñôåú ã"ä åàéîúé ùéøöä éáéà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)
åäà ãëúéá ëøîì ãàôé' îøçå÷ ìà îééúé îùåí ëøîì
(a) Implied question: It is written Karmel [to teach that it must be soft,] and even from far we cannot bring (all the more so we cannot delay until another day)!
äééðå ìîöåä
(b) Answer: Perhaps this is only a Mitzvah (but it is not Me'akev).
3) TOSFOS DH d'Leis Lehu Pircha
úåñôåú ã"ä ãìéú ìäå ôéøëà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves a potential challenge to R. Shimon ben Elazar.)
àò''â ãàéöèøéê ðîé ìøáé ùîòåï á''ø àìòæø îä ùáéòé øùåú ëãôøéùéú
(a) Implied question: We need also [the verse of] R. Shimon ben Elazar [to expound] "just like the seventh day is Reshus...", like I explained!
ëåìäå ùîòéðï:
(b) Answer: We learn all of these [from the verse].
4) TOSFOS DH Zecher l'Mikdash Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä æëø ìî÷ãù äåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether one may reap and count the Omer during the day.)
ðøàä ãáñô÷ çùéëä éëåì ìáøê åàéï öøéê ìäîúéï òã ùéäà åãàé ìéìä ëéåï ùäåà ñôé÷à ãøáðï
(a) Assertion: It seems that when it is Safek dark one can bless [on Sefiras ha'Omer], and he need not wait until it is Vadai night, since it is a Safek mid'Rabanan.
åòåã àåîø ãàôéìå áéåí ñîåê ìçùéëä òãéó îùåí úîéîåú ëãàîøéðï ìòéì
(b) Support: Also, even during the day close to dark is better, due to Temimos (we must count full weeks), like we said above.
åàéï ðøàä
(c) Retraction: It seems that this is wrong.
åäéëà ãùëç ìñôåø áìéìä ôñ÷ áä''â ùñåôø áéåí
(d) Opinion #1: If one forgot to count at night, Bahag ruled that he counts during the day.
åëï äéä ðøàä îúåê ñúí îúðéúéï ãñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó òà.) ãúðï îöåúå áìéìä ì÷öåø åàí ð÷öø áéåí ëùø
(e) Support: Our Stam Mishnah supports this (below, 71a). It teaches that the Mitzvah to reap [the Omer] is at night, and if it was reaped during the day, it is Kosher.
àáì ðøàä ìø''ú òé÷ø àéãê ñúîà ãîúðéúéï ãôø÷ ùðé ãîâéìä (ãó ë:) åîééúé ìä áñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó òá.) ëì äìéìä ëùø ì÷öéøú äòåîø ëå'
(f) Opinion #2 (R. Tam): A different Stam Mishnah (Megilah 20b), brought below (72a), is primary. The entire night is Kosher for reaping the Omer...
åãéé÷éðï îéðä ã÷úðé ìéìä ãåîéà ãéåí îä ãéåí áìéìä ìà àó ãìéìä áéåí ìà
1. We infer that it taught the night similar to the day. Just like [Mitzvos whose time is during] the day are not [Kosher] at night, also [Mitzvos whose time is during] the night are not [Kosher] during the day.
åàîøéðï áøéù îåòã ÷èï (ãó â:) ø''â åáéú ãéðå ðîðå òì ùìùä ôø÷éí äììå åäúéøåí
(g) Support #1: We say in Mo'ed Katan (3b) that R. Gamliel and his Beis Din voted about these three times [when it becomes forbidden to plow in Erev Shemitah] and permitted them;
åîñé÷ øá àùé äúí ãñáø ìä ëøáé éùîòàì ããøéù îä çøéù øùåú àó ÷öéø øùåú éöà ÷öéø äòåîø ùäåà îöåä åãçéà ùáú åëéåï ããçéà ùáú àéï ð÷öø àìà áìéìä ëãîåëç áñåó ôéø÷éï
1. And Rav Ashi concludes that he holds like R. Yishmael, who expounds [be'Charish uha'Katzir Tishbos to teach about Shabbos, and not Shemitah]. Just like plowing is Reshus (there is no Mitzvah to plow), the reaping (that is forbidden) is Reshus. This excludes reaping the Omer, which is a Mitzvah, and overrides Shabbos. And since it overrides Shabbos, it is reaped only at night, like is proven below (72a).
åòåã ãøáé éåçðï ãàîø (ùí â:) òùø ðèéòåú äìëä ìîùä îñéðé ñáø ìä ëø' éùîòàì ããøéù îä çøéù øùåú åãçé ùáú
(h) Support #2: R. Yochanan said there (3b) that the law of 10 saplings (spread over a Beis Se'ah, one may plow the Beis Se'ah in Erev Shemitah until Rosh Hashanah) is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. He holds like R. Yishmael, who expounds "just like plowing is Reshus... [but reaping the Omer is a Mitzvah,] and overrides Shabbos.
òåã çùéá ëé äàé âååðà äìëúà ôñé÷úà áäâåæì ÷îà (á''÷ ÷á.) åáô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó æ.) âáé ëì äîùðä éãå òì äúçúåðä
(i) Support #3 (R. Tam): Such a case (the Mishnah of matters that apply the entire night...) is definite Halachah, in Bava Kama (102a) and Avodah Zarah (7a) regarding "anyone who deviates, he has the lower hand."
åîéäå àéï ëì ëê øàéä îùí ãàéï äìëä ìâîøé ëàåúä îùðä ã÷úðé äúí åëì äçåæø áå éãå òì äúçúåðä åàéï äìëä ëï ëãîåëç áôø÷ äàåîðéï (á''î òæ:)
(j) Rebuttal: There is not such a proof from there, for the Halachah does not follow that Mishnah totally, for it teaches there "anyone who retracts, he has the lower hand", and this is not the Halachah, like is proven in Bava Metzi'a (77b);
åòé÷ø îéìúà ìà ñîéê äúí àìà àäà ãäåé îçìå÷ú åàçø ëê ñúí
1. Primarily, the Gemara (Bava Kama 102a and Avodah Zarah 7a) relied on the fact that it is a Stam Mishnah that comes after an argument [to rule that anyone who deviates has the lower hand].
åîäà ãîå÷é áñåó ôéø÷éï (ãó òá.) øáé àìòæø áøáé ùîòåï ãàîø ð÷öø ùìà ëîöåúå ôñåì ëø' ò÷éáà ãàîø ëì îìàëä ùàé àôùø ëå' àéï øàéä ãàò''â ã÷ééîà ìï ëø''ò
(k) Implied suggestion: Since we establish below (72a) R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, who says that if it was reaped improperly it is Pasul, like R. Akiva, who says that any Melachah [that cannot be done before Shabbos is Docheh Shabbos, this shows that it is reaped only at night,] for we hold like R. Akiva!
äà îñ÷éðï äúí ãøáé ðîé ñáø ìä ëååúéä
(l) Rebuttal: We conclude there that also Rebbi [who permits during the day] holds like [R. Akiva].
òåã ôñ÷ áäìëåú âãåìåú ùàí äôñé÷ éåí àçã åìà ñôø ùåá àéðå ñåôø îùåí ãáòéà úîéîåú
(m) Pesak (Bahag): If one interrupted one day and did not count, afterwards he does not count, because we require Temimos (full weeks).
åúéîä âãåìä äåà åìà éúëï:
(n) Rejection: This is astounding! This cannot be.
66b----------------------------------------66b
5) TOSFOS DH Kenaf Renanim Ne'elasah
úåñôåú ã"ä ëðó øððéí ðòìñä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Sifri about this.)
áñéôøé áôøùä åàúä ä÷øá àìéê âåøñ ðåùà åîòìä ìáéöúä åîçúä ôéøåù áðçú îðéçúä á÷ï ùìä ãëúéá (àéåá ìè) úòæåá ìàøõ áéöéä
(a) Citation (Sifri): It carries and lifts its egg and Machtah. I.e. it gently places it in her nest, for it says "Ta'azov la'Aretz Beitzeha."
åàé âøñ îúçèà ëîå ùëúåá ëîå ëï (áñéôøé) [ö"ì áñôøéí] äåé ðîé ìùåï äåøãä ëãúðï áéåîà (ãó ðç:) äúçéì îçèà åéåøã
(b) Alternative text: If the text says "Mischatei", like it says in Seforim, also this is an expression of lowering, like the Mishnah (Yoma 58b) "he began to be Mechatei (put blood on the corner, using his finger) and descend."
åëï îùîò ðîé áôø÷ áúøà ãáëåøåú (ãó ðæ:) ãôøéê åîé ùãéà ìéä åäà ëúéá ëðó øððéí ðòìñä ëå' àìîà ìùåï äåøãä áðçú äåà ùìà úùáø
(c) Support: It connotes like this in Bechoros (57b). It asks 'does it cast down [its egg]? It says "Kenaf Renanim Ne'elasah..."! This shows that it is an expression of lowering gently, lest it break.
åé''î ìùåï èéåì ëîå áï äîúçèà ìôðé àáéå ãçåðé äîòâì áîñëú úòðéú (ãó éè.)
(d) Alternative explanation: Some say that it is an expression of strolling, like a son who strolls in front of his father, regarding Choni ha'Ma'agil (Ta'anis 19a).
åìà éúëï ùí ááëåøåú (ãó ðæ:)
(e) Rejection: This cannot be [the explanation] in Bechoros (57b).
6) TOSFOS DH Omer Hayah R. Akiva Miru'ach Hekdesh Eino Poter
úåñôåú ã"ä àåîø äéä ø''ò îéøåç ä÷ãù àéðå ôåèø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out a question that we could have asked.)
ä''î ìîéôøê äéëé àúé îùàéðå îòåùø äà áòéðï îîù÷ä éùøàì (éçæ÷àì îä) ãáàéðå îòåùø òñ÷éðï îã÷úðé áàåúå ùðôãä çéåá îòùø
(a) Observation: He could have asked 'how can he bring from what is not tithed? We require "mi'Mashke Yisrael"!', for we discuss what was not tithed, since it taught that what is redeemed is obligated in Ma'aser.
7) TOSFOS DH she'Lo Nitnu Ma'os Ela l'Tzorech Lahen
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìà ðéúðå îòåú àìà ìöåøê ìäï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not R. Akiva agrees with this.)
åäà ã÷úðé åäùàø ðôãä
(a) Implied question: It teaches that the rest is redeemed!
ìéú ìéä ãìãéãéä ìà áòé ôãééä
(b) Answer #1: [R. Akiva] disagrees. He holds that it need not be redeemed!
à''ð ùìà éàîøå ä÷ãù éåöà áìà ôãéåï
(c) Answer #2: [R. Akiva agrees that it must be redeemed. This is a decree,] lest people say that that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.
8) TOSFOS DH Miru'ach ha'Oved Kochavim Tanai Hi d'Tanya Tormin v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí úðàé äéà ãúðéà úåøîéï ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we explain that they argue about Miru'ach Nochri.)
úéîä ãìîà áéù ÷ðéï åàéï ÷ðéï ôìéâé
(a) Question: Perhaps they argue about whether Yesh Kinyan or Ein Kinyan!
åé''ì ãàé ðîé ôìéâé áéù ÷ðéï àëúé ôìéâé áéù îéøåç ãäà áäà úìéà ëãîåëç áâéèéï áñåó äùåìç (ãó îæ.)
(b) Answer #1: Even if they argue about Yesh Kinyan, still they argue [also] about whether [a Nochri's] Miru'ach (final processing) exempts, for one depends on the other, like is proven in Gitin (47a);
ìîàï ãàîø éù ÷ðéï à''ë ãøéù ãâðê åìà ãâï òåáã ëåëáéí åìà îéîòéè ìéä ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
1. The one who holds that Yesh Kinyan, if so he expounds "Degancha (your grain)", and not Degen Nochri, and he does not exclude Digun (Miru'ach) Nochri;
åîàï ãàîø àéï ÷ðéï ãìà ãøéù ãâðê åìà ãâï òåáã ëåëáéí äåä ãøéù ãéâåðê åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
2. And the one who holds that Ein Kinyan (R. Meir and R. Yehudah) does not expound "Degancha", and not Degen Nochri. He expounds "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri.
îéäå àéï ðøàä ëìì ìåîø ëï îãð÷éè ì÷îï øáé îàéø åøáé éäåãä ìçéåáà
(c) Rebuttal: We cannot say so at all, since [Rava] says below (67a) that R. Meir and R. Yehudah obligate [Miru'ach Nochri]!
åàéï ìåîø ãð÷è òé÷ø ôìåâúééäå áîéøåç åëé îå÷îú ìä ðîé áéù ÷ðéï î''î áîéøåç ðîé ôìéâé ëãôøéùéú ãäà áäà úìéà
(d) Implied suggestion: [Our Gemara] mentioned the primary argument about Miru'ach, and even if you establish [the argument] about Yesh Kinyan, in any case they argue about also about Miru'ach, like I explained, for one depends on the other.
ìà îöéðå ìîéîø äëé ãòì ëøçéï ø''î àéú ìéä úøåééäå ìçéåáà ãàéú ìéä àéï ÷ðéï åàéú ìéä àéðå ôåèø îãùøé ìúøåí îùì ëì òì ùì ëì
(e) Rebuttal: We cannot say so, for we are forced to say that R. Meir obligates both (Peros of a Nochri's land, and Miru'ach Nochri), for he holds that Ein Kinyan, and he holds that [Miru'ach Nochri] does not exempt, since he permits [to tithe] from anyone's on anyone's.
åäéä ðøàä ìåîø àéôëà ãàéú (ìéä) [ðøàä ùö"ì ìï] ìîéîø úøåééäå ìçéåáà àå ìôèåøà îùåí ãúìúà ãâðê ëúéáé ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ áñîåê
(f) Answer #2: It seems that we should say oppositely - both are obligated, or both are exempt, for it says "Degancha" three times [regarding Terumah and Ma'aser], like Rashi explained below (67a DH Hasam, DH Ein);
1. Note: Our text of Rashi says "twice", and so Tosfos cites it below (67a DH di'Chsiv). Shitah Mekubetzes changes the text of Rashi to say "two extra times." Tzon Kodoshim changes it to say "three times."
åäùúà çãà ìôèåø îéøåç ä÷ãù àéðê úøé äåé îéòåè àçø îéòåè ìøáåú îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí
2. Now, one [Digunecha] exempts Digun (Miru'ach) Hekdesh, and the other two (exclude Digun Nochrim) are Mi'ut (an exclusion) after Mi'ut to include Miru'ach Nochri;
åäùúà îäéëï ðîòè (ãéâåï) [ö"ì ãâï - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] òåáã ëåëáéí ìåîø ãéù ÷ðéï äìëê úøåééäå ìçéåáà
i. Now, what would be a source to exclude Degen Nochri, i.e. to say Yesh Kinyan?! Therefore, both are obligated;
åîàï ãàéú ìéä éù ÷ðéï îå÷é çã ìîéøåç ä÷ãù åçã ìîéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí åçã ìéù ÷ðéï
3. And the one who holds that Yesh Kinyan, he establishes one [to exclude] Miru'ach Hekdesh, and one [to exclude] Miru'ach Nochri, and one for "Degancha", and not Degen Nochri, i.e.) Yesh Kinyan.
åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé' æä ãáñåó äùåìç (ùí îæ.) åáñåó ô''÷ ãáëåøåú (ãó éà:) îñé÷ ìîàï ãàîø àéï ÷ðéï ãéâåðê åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
(g) Question: In Gitin (47a) and Bechoros (11b) we conclude that according to the opinion that Ein Kinyan, [he expounds] "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri!
åöøéê ìåîø ãåãàé î''ã àéï ÷ðéï éëåì ìñáåø ðîé îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ôåèø åãâðê ùìéùé îå÷é ìéä ìãøùà àçøéúé åìà îñúáø ìéä ìîéãøùéä ìîéòåè àçø îéòåè
(h) Answer: We must say that surely, the one who holds that Ein Kinyan can also hold that Miru'ach Nochri exempts, and he establishes the third "Degancha" for another Drashah. He holds that it is unreasonable to establish it for Mi'ut after Mi'ut;
àáì îàï ãàéú ìéä éù ÷ðéï áò''ë öøéê ìôèåø îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí ãìéú ìï ìàå÷åîé ìãøùà àçøéúé ëì ëîä ãàôùø ìàå÷åîé ì÷øà ëôùèéä ãéâåðê åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
1. However, the one who holds that Yesh Kinyan, he must exempt Miru'ach Nochri. We should not establish it for another Drashah, as long as we can establish the verse for its simple meaning "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri.
åäùúà îùëç úðàé ùôéø ãø''î òì ëøçéï îçééá áúøåééäå îãùøé îùì ëì òì ùì ëì
(i) Conclusion: Now we properly find that Tana'im argue about this. You are forced to say that R. Meir obligates both, since he permits [to tithe] from anyone's on anyone's;
åø''ù åøáé éåñé àôéìå ñáéøà ìäå àéï ÷ðéï ò''ë ðîé ôèøé îéøåç äòåáã ëåëáéí îèòîà ãôøéùéú
1. And R. Shimon and R. Yosi, even if they hold that Yesh Kinyan, you are forced to say that they also exempt Miru'ach Nochri, from the reason I explained.
åáääéà ãâéèéï (ãó îæ.) ã÷àîø áîàé ÷îéôìâé îø ñáø ãâðê åìà ãâï òåáã ëåëáéí åîø ñáø ãéâåðê åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí
(j) Implied question: In Gitin (47a), it says "what do they argue about? One holds that "Degancha", and not Degen Nochri, and one holds "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri! (This is not a full explanation. The latter opinion could hold that Yesh Kinyan, or Ein Kinyan!)
ìà çù ìôøù àìà çã ãâðê
(k) Answer #1: [The Gemara] was concerned to explain only one "Degancha".
àé ðîé äëé ÷àîø åîø ñáø ãéâåðê åìà ãéâåï òåáã ëåëáéí åäåé îéòåè àçø îéòåè
(l) Answer #2: It means that the other expounds "Digunecha", and not Digun Nochri, and it is Mi'ut after Mi'ut.
àáì ääéà ãáëåøåú ìéëà ìîéîø äëé
(m) Question: We cannot explain so in Bechoros!
åìäàé ôé' îöéðå ìîéîø ãäàé ãàéôìéâå øáä åø' àìòæø áâéèéï áéù ÷ðéï àìéáà ãø' éåñé ôìéâé ãàéìå ø''î ò''ë ñ''ì ãàéï ÷ðéï
(n) Answer: According to this explanation, we can say that Rabah and R. Elazar argued in Gitin about Yesh Kinyan according to R. Yosi. Whereas R. Meir, you are forced to say that he holds that Ein Kinyan.
åòåã éù ìôøù ãò''ë ìà îéúå÷îà ôìåâúà ãäëà àìà áîéøåç åìà áéù ÷ðéï ãùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé îàéø ãàîø éù ÷ðéï áô''÷ ãò''æ (ãó ë:)
(o) Answer #3 (to Question (a)): You are forced to say that we establish the argument here only about Miru'ach, and not about Yesh Kinyan, for [if they argued about Yesh Kinyan, R. Meir would hold that Ein Kinyan, and] we know that R. Meir holds Yesh Kinyan in Avodah Zarah (20b);
ãúðï àéï îùëéøéï áúéí åàéï öøéê ìåîø ùãåú ãáøé ø''î
1. A Mishnah teaches that we do not rent houses [to Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael], and there is no need to teach [that we forbid] fields. R. Meir says so;
åîôøù áâî' ãàéï öøéê ìåîø ùãåú îùåí ãàéú áä úøúé çãà ÷ðééú ÷ø÷ò åçãà ãîô÷ò ìäå îîòùø ôéøåù ãéù ÷ðéï
i. The Gemara explains that we need not teach fields, because there are two problems - [the Nochri] acquires land (the seller transgresses "Lo Sechanem"), and he uproots it from Ma'aser, i.e. for he holds that Yesh Kinyan.
åäà ã÷àîø ø''î äëà îùì ëì òì ùì ëì
(p) Implied question: Why does R. Meir permits [to tithe] from anyone's on anyone's? (He holds that a Nochri's Peros are exempt!)
ëâåï úáåàä áîåõ ùìä ùì÷çä òåáã ëåëáéí îéùøàì åîøçä
(q) Answer: The case is, a Nochri bought from a Yisrael the grain in its chaff, and he did Miru'ach;
ãàé âãìä áøùåú òåáã ëåëáéí äåä ìéä îï äôèåø òì äçéåá
1. Had it grown in the Nochri's ownership, [tithing from it on a Yisrael's] would be from what is exempt on what is obligated.
åîéäå áéøåùìîé îùîò ãøáé îàéø ñáø àéï ÷ðéï ãúðï áîñ' ãîàé ô''ä îòùøéï îùì éùøàì òì ùì äòåáã ëåëáéí åîùì äòåáã ëåëáéí òì ùì éùøàì
(r) Observation: The Yerushalmi connotes that R. Meir holds that Ein Kinyan, for a Mishnah in Demai (5:9) teaches that one may tithe from a Yisrael's [Peros] on a Nochri's, and from a Nochri's on a Yisrael's;
åàîøéðï áâî' îúðé' ëø''î ãàîø àéï ÷ðéï ìòåáã ëåëáéí áà''é ìôåèøå îï äîòùøåú ø' éäåãä åø''ù àåîøéí éù ÷ðéï
1. And the Gemara [in the Yerushalmi] says that our Mishnah is R. Meir, who holds that Ein Kinyan l'Nochri in Eretz Yisrael to exempt from Ma'aseros. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon hold that Yesh Kinyan!
åéøåùìîé ìèòîéä ãîôøù áñåó ô''÷ ãîñëú ò''æ áéú àéðå îöåé ìäúáøê îúåëå ùãä îöåé äåà ìäúáøê îúåëä
(s) Explanation: The Yerushalmi holds that it says elsewhere, in Avodah Zarah, that [R. Meir holds that renting houses to Nochrim is not as bad as fields, because] a house is not so prone to be blessed from inside it, but a field is prone to be blessed from inside it. (If it held that he holds that Yesh Kinyan, it should say that fields are worse, for he uproots from Ma'aser!)
9) TOSFOS DH R. Yosi v'R. Shimon Omerim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåñé åø''ù àåîøéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that they hold that Kusim are like Nochrim.)
îãùøé ìúøåí îùì ëåúééí òì ùì òåáãé ëåëáéí åòì ùì éùøàì àñø îùîò ãñ''ì ëåúéí âéøé àøéåú äï
(a) Inference: Since one may tithe from Kusim (Nochrim that Sancheriv settled in place of the exiled 10 tribes; they later converted) on Nochrim, and it is forbidden on of Yisrael, this implies that they hold that Kusim are Garei Arayos (they converted only due to fear of lions. It was an invalid conversion.)
åäà ãîùîò áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éã.) âáé äìå÷ç ééï îáéï äëåúééí ãìà àñøé ø' éåñé åø''ù àìà îùåí ãàéï áøéøä àáì àí ðéú÷ï ùøé áùúééä
(b) Implied question: It connotes in Chulin (14a) regarding one who buys wine from Kusim that R. Yosi and R. Shimon forbid [to stipulate to drink now and separate tithes later] only because Ein Bereirah, but if it was tithed, they permit drinking it! (If they are Nochrim, their wine is forbidden!)
ääéà áîèäø ééðå ùì ëåúé
(c) Answer: That discusses [a Yisrael who was] Metaher the Kusi's wine (he made it).
åà''ú åäà îñ÷éðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãùáú (ãó èæ:) àìéáà ãøáé éåñé ãàîø (îëàï îãó äáà) àó áðåú ëåúéí ðãåú îòøéñúï áå áéåí âæøå
(d) Question: We conclude in Shabbos (16b) according to R. Yosi, also "Kusi girls are Nidos from birth" was decreed on that day (when they counted, and Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel, and they made 18 decrees);