תוס' ד"ה באחריות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rami bar Chama refers specifically to a case where Reuven sold the field with Achrayos.)

שלא באחריות פשיטא דיתן ליורשיו, אפילו לא זקפן עליו במלוה.


Clarification: Without Achrayos it would be obvious that one gives the money to the heirs, even Shimon had not turned the payment into a loan.

אבל באחריות קמ"ל דה"א יעכבם לעצמו, דה"ל כתופס מחיים. קמ"ל דלא חשיב ליה כתופס מחיים, כיון דזקפן עליו במלוה.


Clarification (cont.): But now that Reuven sold it with Achrayos, Rami bar Chami is teaching us that, even though we might have thought that Shimon is permitted to keep the money, since it is as if he would have seized it during Reuven's lifetime, this is not the case, seeing as he turned it into a loan.



תוס' ד"ה ופייסיה בזוזי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rami bar Chama sees fit to establish the case in this way.)

רבותא נקט - אף על פי שנתן מעות, לא מצי למימר 'המעות שנתחייבתי לאביכם נתתי לו'.


Clarification: The Chidush here is that Shimon cannot claim that even though he gave the creditor money, what he gave him was the money that he owed the Yesomim's father, Reuven.



תוס' ד"ה משתעבדנא לב"ח דאבוכון מדרבי נתן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the same thing will not apply to Metalt'lin, and proves from the Sugya that the Halachah is like Rebbi Nasan.)

וא"ת, גבי מטלטלים נמי נימא הכי?


Question: Why do we not say the same with regard to Metalt'lin?

ונראה לר"י דדוקא גבי קרקע שייך למימר הכי, דבת שיעבוד היא, דכשהקרקע זו משועבדת לראובן חשבינן ליה כאילו היא בידו.


Answer: The Ri explains that it is only with regard to Karka, which is subject to Shi'bud, that we can say this, because when this land is Meshu'bad to Reuven, we consider it as if it is in his possession.

דהא אם מכרה או משכנה, חוזר ראובן, וגובה אותה, ולכך משועבדת נמי לבע"ח.


Reason: This is because if the owner were to sell it or to give it as a security, Reuven would have the right to claim it. That is why it is also Meshu'bad to the creditor.

אבל מטלטלים אין להחשיבם כאילו הם ביד ראובן, כיון שאילו מכרם או משכנם, אין גובה מהן.


Reason (cont.): Whereas we cannot, by the same token, consider Metalt'lin as if they are in Reuven's possession, because if the owner were to sell them or to give them as a security, he would be unable to claim them.

ומכאן יש להוכיח דהלכה כרבי נתן - דהא רבא קאי כוותיה בשמעתין.


Halachah: From this Sugya we have a proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Nasan, seeing as Rava holds like him in the course of the Sugya.




תוס' ד"ה אלא הב"ע שהרהינו אצלו וקמיפלגי בדרבי יצחק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye will explain both the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa, and in which point our Mishnah differs from the Beraisa.)

תימה לריב"א, אביי היאך יתרץ הך, דע"כ בדרבי יצחק קמיפלגי. וסיפא דקתני 'נכרי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו', אמאי דברי הכל עובר, אע"ג דלא קנה, כיון דלמפרע הוא גובה?


Question #1: The Riva asks how Abaye will explains that, bearing in mind that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Meir can only argue over Rebbi Yitzchak, why in the Seifa does everyone agree that one transgresses, even though he has not acquired it, seeing as he claims retroactively?

ורישא נמי, אמאי אינו עובר, למ"ד כיון דלמפרע הוא גובה?


Question #2: And in the Reisha too, why does one not transgress according to the opinion that holds that one claims retroactively?

ומפרש ריב"א, דהשתא כי מוקי פלוגתא בדרבי יצחק, מיירי שלא בא ישראל לידי גבייה, שפדאו נכרי לבסוף, דלא שייך השתא פלוגתא דאביי ורבא כלל.


Answer: The Riva answers that now that we establish the Machlokes like Rebbi Yitzchak, it speaks that the Yisrael did not actually manage to claim it because the Nochri ultimately redeemed it, in which case the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not applicable.

אלא בהא קמיפלגי - דלמאן דאמר עובר, ס"ל דקני ליה ישראל מנכרי, וה"ל ברשות ישראל; ומ"ד אינו עובר, ס"ל דלא קני ליה, והרי לא היה ברשותו.


Answer (cont.): And the Machlokes is - that the one who says that he transgresses holds that a Yisrael acquires from a Nochri, in which case it is in the domain of the Yisrael; whereas the one who holds that he does not, holds that since he does not acquire it, it is not in his domain.

ובסיפא ד"ה עובר - דלא קני ליה נכרי לכ"ע, והרי היה ברשות ישראל.


Answer (cont.): Whereas in the Seifa, everyone agrees that he transgresses, seeing as they both agree that the Nochri does not acquire from the Yisrael, and it remains in the domain of the Yisrael.

ומיהו מתניתין דקתני 'נכרי שהלוה ... , מותר בהנאה' - מיירי שלא פדאו ישראל, דאי פדאו, אע"ג דמוקי לה בסמוך בדאמר ליה 'מעכשיו', מכל מקום מאי מהני?


Conclusion: Our Mishnah however, which states that 'A Nochri who lent a Yisrael ... it is Mutar be'Hana'ah, speaks where the Yisrael did not redeem it, because if he did, even though we will shortly establish it where he specifically said 'from now' (retroactively), nevertheless what purpose would that serve?



תוס' ד"ה בדרבי יצחק קמיפלגי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Yitzchak, who speaks about a Mashkon that is given after the loan has taken place with our Sugya, which speaks about one that is given at the same time as the loan.)

תימה, הא ר' יצחק לא קאמר דקני משכון אלא שלא בשעת הלואה, כדמוכח בהאומנין (בבא מציעא פב.). והכא 'ישראל שהלוה לנכרי על חמצו' תנן, דמשמע בשעת הלואה ...


Question: But Rebbi only said that a creditor acquires the Mashkon if it was given after the loan took place, as is evident in 'ha'Umnin' (Bava Metzi'a 82.), whereas here the Lashon the Mishnah says 'A Yisrael who lent a Nochri against his Chametz', which implies that it was given at the time of the loan ...

כדמשמע בהאומנין, דקתני 'הלוהו על המשכון, שומר שכר'. והתניא 'שומר חנם'?


Source: as is implied in 'ha'Umnin', where the Gemara queries the Mishnah which states ''If he lent him against his Mashkon, he is a Shomer Sachar' from a Beraisa which declares him a Shomer Chinam ...

ומשני - הא דמשכנו בשעת הלואתו, והא שלא בשעת הלואתו.


Source (cont.): And it answers that one of them (the latter) speaks where he gave it at the time of the loan, whilst the other speaks where he gave it after the loan took place.

ופריך 'והא אידי ואידי "על המשכון" קתני'?


Source (cont.): And the Gemara then asks 'But do both not say 'against a Mashkon'?

ויש לומר, דהכי פירושו - כיון דשלא בשעת הלואה קונה לגמרי כדרבי יצחק, א"כ, לענין חמץ יש לנו לחושבו כאילו הוא שלו לעבור בלא ימצא אף בשעת הלואה, דחשבינן ליה מצוי.


Answer: What the Gemara means is that since a Mashkon that is given after the loan acquires completely, as Rebbi Yitzchak says, then even if it is given against the loan it ought to be considered his (the creditor's) at least with regard to Chametz, since it is considered 'Matzuy' (found by him) ...

וכן יש לפרש בהשולח (גיטין לז.) גבי 'המלוה על המשכון, אינו משמט, מדרבי יצחק' ...


Precedent: And this is also how we must explain the Gemara in Gitin (37.) which states that if someone lends against a Mashkon, the loan is not cancelled at the end of the Sh'mitah, based on Rebbi Yitzchak ...

כיון דקני ליה שלא בשעת הלואה, בשעת הלואה נמי מיקרי 'של אחיך בידך'.


Precedent (cont.): Since one acquires it when it is given after the loan, then when it is given at the time of the loan, then it falls under the category of 'your brother's in your hands'.



תוס' ד"ה שקונה משכון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's interpretation of Koneh Mashkon and clarifies another aspect of the Sugya.)

פ"ה, קונה משכון לענין חיוב אונסין.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he acquires the security with regard to being liable for Onsin.

ור"י אומר, דבהאומנין (ב"מ פב.) משמע דלא הוי אלא שומר שכר, ד'הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר' בעי למימר התם בגמרא, דסבר לה כרבי יצחק.


Explanation #2: The Ri says that in 'ha'Umnin' it is implied that one only becomes a Shomer Sachar, since the Gemara there wants to say that someone who lends against a security is a Shomer Sachar, since he holds like Rebbi Yitzchak.

וכולה שמעתא חמצו של נכרי ביד ישראל איירי - שלא קבל עליו ישראל אחריות.


Clarification: The entire Sugya speaks about the Chametz of a Nochri in the hands of a Yisrael on which he did not accept liability

דאי קבל, הרי הוא שלו, ועובר עליו כדמוכח בפ"ק (דף ה:).


Reason: Because if he did, it would be considered his, and he would transgress for having it, as is evident in the first Perek (Daf 5:).



תוס' ד"ה ואם אמר הגעתיך עובר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye establishes the Reisha and the Seifa.)

לאביי רישא מיירי כשפדאו, וסיפא כי אמר 'הגעתיך' - היינו שאינו רוצה לפדותו.


Clarification: According to Abaye, the Reisha speaks where he actually redeemed it, the Seifa, where he said 'You already have it', in other words, where he does not want to redeem it.