1)

TOSFOS DH MESHALMIN K'SHA'AS HA'GEZEILAH

úåñ' ã"ä îùìîéï ëùòú äâæéìä

(Summary: Tosfos explains how this is a Kashya on Rava.)

ãùéðåé ÷ðä, àìîà îäðé, åúéåáúà ãøáà?

(a)

Clarification: Since Shinuy is Koneh, from we see that it is effective - posing a Kashya on Rava.

2)

TOSFOS DH MACHZIR ES HA'KAR BA'LAYLAH V'ES HA'MACHRISHAH BA'YOM V'TIYUVTA D'RAVA

úåñ' ã"ä îçæéø àú äëø áìéìä åàú äîçøéùä áéåí åúéåáúà ãøáà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Tiyuvta on Rava and elaborates.)

ãàé ìà îäðé, ìà äéä úôéñúå úôéñä, åäéä ìå ìäçæéøí ìáòìéí îëì åëì àôéìå áéåí.

(a)

Clarification: Because if it was not effective, then he Tefisah (taking it) would not be valid, in which case he would have to return it completely to the owner even in the daytime.

åàí úàîø, îðìï ãäà îúðéúéï áîùëðå ùìà áøùåú àééøé - ãìîà áîùëðå ùìéç áéú ãéï ÷àîø, ãîçæéø äëø áìéìä åäîçøéùä áéåí, ãìà òáø ...

(b)

Question: From where do we know that the Mishnah is speaking where he took it without Beis-Din's permission? Perhaps it is speaking where the Shali'ach Beis-Din took the security, and he must return the cushion in the night and the plow in the day, because he did not transgress ...

àáì äéëà ãòáø àéîà ìê ãìà îäðé?

1.

Question (cont.): But where he did, we will say that it does not take effect?

åé"ì, ãäê îùðä îéúðéà áôø÷ äî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷éâ.) âáé 'îùëðå ùìà áøùåú' ...

(c)

Answer: This Mishnah appears in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 113a) in connection with someone who takes a Mashkon without permission ...

ãúðé ìòéì îéðéä 'äîìåä çáéøå, ìà éîùëðå àìà ááéú ãéï åìà éëðñ ìáéúå ìéèåì îùëåðå, ùðàîø ''áçåõ úòîåã... '' ...

(d)

Source: Since the Beraisa said earlier 'Someone who lends his friend money may only take a Mashkon via Beis-Din - he may not enter the (debtor's) house to take it, as the Pasuk writes "He shall stand outside ... "

äéå ìå ùðé ëìéí, ðåèì àçã åîðéç àçã; îçæéø àú äëø áìéìä åàú äîçøéùä áéåí' ...

1.

Source (cont.): If he (the debtor) possesses two Keilim, he takes one and leaves the other. He returns the cushion in the night and the plow in the day' ...

àìîà à'ùìà áøùåú ÷àé- ëìåîø åàí ðëðñ îçæéø åëå'.

(e)

Explanation #1: So we see that it is referring to taking without permission - inasmuch as if he does enter, he is obligated to return it etc.

åòåã é''ì, ãîùîò ìéä ã'îçæéø' îùîò áëì òðéï.

(f)

Explanation #2: Moreover 'Machzir' mentioned by the Tana implies under all circumstances.

3)

TOSFOS DH SHA'ANI HASAM D'AMAR K'RA HASHEIV TASHIV

úåñ' ã"ä ùàðé äúí ãàîø ÷øà äùá úùéá

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in 'Eilu Metzi'os and explains it according to both Rava and Abaye.)

åà"ú, äà ãàîø ôø÷ àìå îöéàåú (á"î ãó ìà:) ''äùá úùéá'' - 'àéï ìé [àìà] ùîùëðå áøùåú; ùìà áøùåú îðéï? ú"ì ''äùá úùéá'' îëì î÷åí ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: When the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 31b) "Hashev Tashiv" - 'We only know if he took the Mashkon with permission; From where do wee know, even if he took it without permission? Therefore the Torah writes "Hashev Tashiv" under all circumstances' ...

îùîò ãàé ìàå "äùá úùéá" , ä"à ãîùëðå ùìà áøùåú àéðå öøéê äùáä...

(b)

Question: Implying that, if not for "Hashev Tashiv", we would have learned that if he would take without permission he would not need to return it ...

åäëà àîø ìøáà ãàé ìàå "äùá úùéá" , ä"à ãìà îäðé úôéñúå, åäéä öøéê ìäçæéø îëì åëì?

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas here Rava maintains that were it not for "Hashev Tashiv", his grabbing it would not be valid and he would need to return it completely?

åöøéê ìôøù ìøáà äëé - 'àéï ìé àìà ùîùëðå áøùåú ãîçæéø åðåèìä, àáì îùëðå ùìà áøùåú îðéï ãçåæø åðåèìä, ãîäðéà úôéñúå? ú"ì "äùá úùéá îëì î÷åí".

(c)

Answer: According to Rava, we must therefore explain like this - 'We only know that he may return the Mashkon and take it back again if he took it with permission; From where do we know that he may do so even if he took it without permission, since his grabbing it is effective? Therefore the Torah writes "Hashev Tashiv" under all circumstances'.

åìàáéé ä"ô - 'àéï ìé àìà ãöøéê ìäçæéø ëìì àìà ùîùëðå áøùåú, îùëðå ùìà áøùåú îðéï ãöøéê ìäçæéø ìå ëìì, ëéåï ãòáéã îäðé åìà îäãø? ú"ì "äùá úùéá" î"î.

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas Abaye will explain like this: 'We only know that he needs to return Mashkon at all there where he took it with permission; From where do we know that that he needs to return it at all, even if he took it without permission? Therefore the Torah writes "Hashev Tashiv" under all circumstances'.

åäëé ðîé ÷àîø äëà - ãìàáéé àé ìàå ãàîø øçîðà "äùá úùéá", ä"à àéñåøà òáã, åàé áòé îäãø åàé áòé ìà îäãø, ÷î"ì.

(d)

Support: And this is what the Gemara states here - that according to Abaye, had the Torah not written "Hashev Tashiv", we would have learned that he has the option of whether to return it or not.

å÷ùä, îääéà ãñåó ô' äî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷èæ.) ã'ääåà âáøà ãçáì ñëéðà ãàùëáúà îçáøéä; àúà ì÷îéä ãàáéé, à"ì 'æéì àäãø îùåí ãáøéí ùòåùéï áäï àåëì ðôù' ...

(e)

Introduction to Question: At the end of Perek Hamekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 116a) however, the Gemara records that when a man who took a butcher's knife as a Mashkon came before Abaye, he ordered him to return it because of Keilim that are needed for one's livelihood ...

åëéåï ãàéú ìéä ìàáéé ã'àé òáã îäðé', àîàé ÷à"ì 'æéì àäãø'?

1.

Question: And since Abaye holds 'I Avid Mehani', why did he instruct him to return it (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos 28)?

åé"ì, ãîééøé ùìà ðúëåéï ääåà âáøà ìòáåø.

(f)

Answer: It speaks there where the man involved did not have the intention of transgressing.

åîäàé èòîà ðîé ðéçà ÷åùéà àçøú - ãúðï ô' äî÷áì (ùí ÷èå.) 'çáì øéçééí åøëá, ìå÷ä ùúéí' ...

(g)

Introduction to Question: And this also answers another Kashya (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos 29) - on the Mishnah in Perek Hamekabel (Ibid. 115a) 'Someone who takes the upper and lower millstones transgresses two La'avin'.

å÷ùä, ëéåï ãàéú ìéä ìàáéé ãàéú ìéä ú÷ðä áçæøä, ëãàîø âáé ñëéðà ãàùëáúà 'æéì àäãø', à"ë, àîàé ì÷é - ìàå äðéú÷ ìòùä äåà?

1.

Question: Seeing as Abaye holds that returning rectifies the situation, as he said regarding the butcher's knife 'Go and return it', why is he subject to Malkos, since it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?

åìôé äà ãôéøùúé ðéçà - ãäà ãàîø àáéé 'æéì àäãø' îééøé áùìà ðúëåéï ìòáåø, åäà ãúðï ãì÷é, áîúëåéï ìòáåø.

(h)

Answer: According to Tosfos previous answer however, the question falls away - inasmuch as where Abaye said 'Go and return it', it speaks when he did not intend to transgress, whereas the Mishnah which rules that he receives Malkos speaks where he did.

åéù îúøöéí ãäà ãàîø ãì÷é îééøé áùðàáã ãàéï áéãå ìäçæéø, åáéèì äòùä ã"äùá úùéá".

(i)

Refuted Answer: Some commentaries answer that the Mishnah which rules 'Laki' is speaking where the article got lost and he is unable to return it, in wich case he has nullified the Asei of "Hashev Tashiv".

åìà ðäéøà, ùäøé áôø÷ áúøà ãîëåú (ãó èæ:) îùîò ãäéëà ãâáøà áø úùìåîéï äåà, ìà ùééê áéèåì.

(j)

Refutation: This is not correct however, since in the last Perek in Makos (Daf 16b) it is implied that once the man is eligible, it is not subject to nullification (See Footnote 1).

4)

TOSFOS DH AF MAFRISH MIN HA'IYSAH

úåñ' ã"ä àó îôøéù îï äòéñä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

åàéï ùéðåé ùí ÷åðä.

(a)

Clarification: And Shinuy ha'Shem is not Koneh.

5)

TOSFOS DH AMAR ABAYE SHA'ANI HASAM D'AMAR K'RA AZOV TA'AZOV V'RAVA AMAR LACH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø àáéé ùàðé äúí ãàîø ÷øà (òæá) úòæåá åøáà àîø ìê ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in ha'Gozel Eitzim and elaborates.)

åà"ú, äëà îùîò ãìàáéé àéöèøéê "úòæåá" éúéøà, åìøáà ìà àéöèøéê ...

(a)

Question: Here it implies that Abaye requires an extra "Ta'zov", whilst Rava doesn't ...

åáøéù äâåæì òöéí (á"÷ ãó öã.) îùîò àéôëà - ãàáéé îåëç îäê îéìúà ãøáé éùîòàì ã'ùéðåé áî÷åîå òåîã', åøáà ãçé ìéä åàîø 'ùàðé äëà ãëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà' ?

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas at the beginning of 'ha'Gagozel Eitzim' (Bava Kama, Daf 94a) it implies the other way round - that Abaye extrapolates from the statement of Rebbi Yishmael that Shinuy is not Koneh, and Rava refutes that and learns that here it is different, since the Torah writes an etra "Ta'azov"?

åé"ì, ãäëà àìéáà ãú"÷ àééøé... ãìàáéé ãàîø 'àé òáéã îäðé' - àé ìà ëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà, ìà äéä öøéê ìäôøéù ôàä îéã ùòáø, àìà úëìä ...

(b)

Answer: The Sugya here goes according to the Tana Kama ... Abaye holds that 'I Avid Mehani' - and that if not for the extra "Ta'azov" he would not need to separate Pe'ah immediately after transgressing, but that he is permitted to finish the harvest ...

îéäå ìú"÷ àé àùúðé áéãå åòùä îîðå òéñä, ÷ðàä áùéðåé åàéðå öøéê ìäôøéù ôàä îëàï åàéìê ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Only according to the Tana Kama, if he changed it and made a dough from it, he acquires it withy Shinuy and does not need to separate Pe'ah from it after that ...

àáì ø' éùîòàì ãàîø 'éôøéù îï äòéñä' , àéú ìéä ãùéðåé áî÷åîå òåîã ...

2.

Answer (concl.): But Rebbi Yishmael who rules that he must separate from the dough, holds that Shinuy is no Koneh ...

ãàé äåä ñ"ì áòìîà ãùéðåé ÷åðä, ìà äéä îôøéù îï äòéñä ...

(c)

Reason: Because if he held that generally, Shinuy is Koneh, he would not require the owner to separate from the dough ...

åàó òì âá ãëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà ...

(d)

Implied Question: And even though the Torah writes an extra "Ta'azov" ...

àéöèøéê ùôéø ìäéëà ãìà àéùúðé - àó òì âá ãáòìîà 'àé òáéã îäðé', äëà ìà îäðé îùåí ãëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà ...

(e)

Answer: It is needed for there where he did not make aa Shinuy - in that, even though normally 'I Avid Mehani', here this is not the case, since the Torah adds an extra "Ta'azov" ...

àáì øáà ãàéú ìéä ã'àé òáã ìà îäðé' - îùåí äëé ÷àîø ú"÷ ãöøéê ìäôøéù ôàä, àó òì âá ãòáø à"ìà úëìä", åàéï öøéê "úòæåá" éúéøà ìú"÷ ìäëé ...

1.

Answer (cont.): But according to Rava, who holds 'I Avid Lo Mehani' - that is why the Tana Kama requires him to separate Pe'ah, despite the fact that he transgressed "Lo Sechaleh", so thayt the Tan Kama does not require the extra "Ta'azov" for this.

îéäå äéëà ãàéùúðé ôèåø, ã'ùéðåé ÷åðä' ...

2.

Answer (cont.): Where he made a Shinuy however, he is Patur, since 'Shinuy is Koneh' ...

åø' éùîòàì ñáø ãáòìîà 'ùéðåé ÷åðä', àáì äëà ìà ÷ðä îùåí ãëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà.

3.

Answer (concl.): Whereas Rebbi Yishmael holds that even though normally, 'Shinuy is Koneh' here it is not, because the Torah writes the extra "Ta'azov".

6)

TOSFOS DH HA'MAFKIR KARMO V'HISHKIM LA'BOKER U'BATZRO CHAYAV B'PERET U'V'OLELOS U'V'SHIKCHAH U'PE'AH

úåñ' ã"ä äîô÷éø ëøîå åäùëéí ìá÷ø åáöøå çééá áôøè åáòåììåú åáùëçä åôàä

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, explains why he is Chayav, even though Hefker is Patur and elaborates.)

ôéøù"é àó òì âá ãäô÷ø ôèåø îëì àìå ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Hefker is Patur from all of these ...

äô÷ø ëé äàé çééá...

(b)

Answer: This kind of Hefker is Chayav ...

åðô÷à ìï î"úòæåá" éúéøà, ãáëåìäå ëúéá "úòæåá" éúéøà.

(c)

Source: And we learn it from the extra "Ta'azov", which is written by all of them (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos 32).

åàåø"é ãäçéåá úìåé äéëà ãæëä áâåó äùãä, àáì äéëà ãìà æëä ø÷ áôéøåú ôèåø îëåìäå.

(d)

Chidush: The Ri states that the Chiyuv applies only if he acquires the entire field, but if he acquires only the fruit, he is Patur from all of them.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'HASHTA D'SHANINAN KOL HANI SHINUYI ABAYE V'RAVA B'MAI P'LIGI

úåñ' ã"ä åäùúà ãùðéðï ëì äðé ùéðåéé àáéé åøáà áîàé ôìéâé

(Summary: Tosfos suggests various answers to the Kashya.)

åà"ú, ðéîà ãôìéâé áäëé - ëâåï àãí ùðùáò ùìà ìâøù àú àùúå åàçø ëê òáø åâéøù - ãìàáéé îäðé, åìøáà ìà îäðé âéøåùéï- ëéåï ãòáø àîéîøà ãøçîðà?

(a)

Question: Why can we not answer that they are arguing over a case - where a person swears that he will not divorce his wife and then transgresses and divorces her - in which case the divorce will take effect according to Abaye, but not according to Rava - seeing as he contravened a Torah command (See Hashmatos, Shitah Mekubetzes 33)?

åéù ìåîø, ëéåï ùàéï äàéñåø ëúåá áúåøä (ëîå "ìà éåëì ìùìçä") àìà ùäåà áãä àú äàéñåø, áëä"â ìà àîø øáà ãìà îäðé.

(b)

Answer: Since it is not an Isur that is written in the Torah, (like "Lo Yuchal Leshalchah"), but one that he instigated, Rava will not say 'Lo Mehani'.

å÷ùéà ìøáéðå áøåê, àîàé ìà ÷àîø ãôìéâé áäëé ëâåï àí ôãä áëåø àå îòùø àå çøîéí, ãìà îäðé ìë"ò ëãîôøù áñåâéà ...

(c)

Introduction to Question: Rabeinu Baruch asks why we cannot answer that they are arguing over a case - where a person redeems a B'chor, Ma'aser or Charamim, which everybody agrees is not effective, as is explained in the Sugya ...

ãìàáéé ìà ì÷é - ëéåï ãìà îäðé, ãäëé àîø àáéé ìòéì ãäéëà ãìà îäðé ìà ì÷é, åìøáà ì÷é îùåí ãòáø àîéîøà ãøçîðà? ö"ò.

1.

Question: In which case he will not receive Malkos according to Abaye, since it is not effective; whereas Rava maintains that, since he transgressed a Torah command, he will? Tzarich Iyun.

6b----------------------------------------6b

8)

TOSFOS DH V'LO OTZI PARAS CHATAS V'SA'IR HA'MISHTALE'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä åìà àåöéà ôøú çèàú åùòéø äîùúìç

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rashi omits 'Paras Chatas' from the text and elaborates.)

ôéøù"é áéåîà ô' ùðé ùòéøé (ãó ñâ:) ãì"â 'ôøú çèàú' ...

(a)

Clarifying Text: Rashi, in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei) Yoma 63b) omits 'Paras Chatas' from the text ...

ùäøé áô' áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éá.) úðï 'ôøú çèàú ùùøôä çåõ îâéúä, åùòéø äîùúìç ùä÷øéáå áçåõ, ôèåø, ùðàîø "åàì ôúç àäì îåòã ìà äáéàå", ëì ùàéðå øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã àéï çééáéï òìéå' ...

1.

Reason: Because in the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 112a) the Mishnah states 'If someone (burns) Shechts the Paras Chatas outside its location or sacrificed the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach outside the Azarah, he is Patur, as the Torah writes "ve'el Pesah Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - 'One is not Chayav on anything that is not fit to stand at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed' ...

åôøéê áâî' òìä 'åùòéø äîùúìç ìà øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã äåà, åäúðéà ... ? åîééúé äê áøééúà ãäëà ...

2.

Reason (cont.): And the Gemara asks there 'Is the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach not fit to stand at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed?' and it cites the Beraisa here ...

åàé âøñ áä 'ôøú çèàú' ëé äéëé ãôøéê îùòéø äîùúìç, äëé ðîé äåä îöé ìîéôøê îôøú çèàú - åàéï äúéøåõ ùééê à'ôøú çèàú? ...

3.

Reason (concl.): Now if the text read 'Paras Chatas', then, just as the Gemara asks from Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, so too, could it ask from Paras Chatas - and the answer that it gives there will not apply to Paras Chatas? ...

ò''ë ðøòä îä ùôøù"é, ãì"â ìéä.

(b)

Conclusion: Therefore what Rashi explains - to delete the text, is correct.

å÷ùä òì äà ãîùðé òìä áæáçéí (ãó ÷éâ:) 'ìà ÷ùéà, ëàï ÷åãí äâøìä ëàï ìàçø äâøìä ...

(c)

Introduction to Question: There is a Kashya on this however, from the Gemara's answer in Zevachim (Daf 113b) 'Lo Kashya, one speaks before the Hagralah, and the other, after the Hagralah' ...

÷åãí äâøìä äåä øàåé ìôúç àäì îåòã, åàôéìå äëé îîòè ìéä ÷øà - ãàí ä÷øéáå áçåõ, ôèåø ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): Before the Hagralah it is fit to sytand at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, yet the Pasuk precludes it - that if he sacrificed it outside, he is Patur ...

åáéåîà (ãó ñá:) úðéà áäãéà ã÷åãí äâøìä çééá äùåçèå áçåõ?

(d)

Question: Whereas in Yoma (Daf 62a) the Beraisa specifically states that before the Hagralah, whoever Shechts it outside is Chayav?

åé"ì, ãìôé äîñ÷ðà ãæáçéí (ùí) ðéçà ...

(e)

Introduction to Answer: According to the Maskana in Zevachim (Ibid.) the question is answered ...

ãîñé÷ 'ìà ÷ùéà, ëàï ÷åãí åãåé, ëàï ìàçø åãåé'.

1.

Introduction to Answer (cont.): Since it concludes that there is no Kashya,and that one speaks before Viduy, and the other, after Viduy (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos, 32).

åìôé æä àôùø úøååééäå ìàçø äâøìä, àáì ÷åãí äâøìä àôùø ãçééá äùåçè áçåõ - ëé ääéà ãéåîà.

(f)

Answer: In that case, it is possible that both are speaking after Hagralah, whereas before Hagralah it may well be that the one who Shechts outside is Chayav, like the Gemara in Yoma.

9)

TOSFOS DH U'KERA LAMAH LI K'GON SHE'HUMAM L'ACHAR HAGRALAH V'CHIL'LO AL CHAVERO

úåñ' ã"ä å÷øà ìîä ìé ëâåï ùäåîí ìàçø äâøìä åçéììå òì çáéøå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and elaborates/)

åäåà ðîé áòì îåí - å÷î"ì ãäàé ù'çéììå ì÷é' îùåí ãä÷ãéùå áòì îåí.

(a)

Clarification: Which is also a Ba'al-Mum - and it teaches us that when it says 'she'Chilelo Laki', it is because he was Makdish a Ba'al-Mum.

åìäëé ð÷è 'çéììå' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And he mentions 'she'Chilelo' ...

ãàé ìàå ãçéììå, òì áòì îåí ìéëà îì÷åú ãìà î÷ãéùå òì äùðé.

(c)

Answer: Because had he not transferred it, he would not be Chayav Malkos merely for being Makdish a Ba'al-Mum, seeing as he was not Makdish it on the other one.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF