1)

TOSFOS DH Mitzvas Chalitzah Kodemes

úåñôåú ã"ä îöåú çìéöä ÷åãîú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos ruled like this elsewhere in the name of R. Tam.)

îä )ùôé' øáéðå çððàì ôé' ôø÷( [ö"ì ùôñ÷ ø"ú ôé' áôø÷] äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìè:)

(a)

Reference: I explained R. Tam's ruling in Yevamos (39b DH Amar. The Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul, like the Stam Mishnah here.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Mitzvas Ge'ulah Kodemes she'Ne'emar v'Im Lo Yiga'el

úåñôåú ã"ä îöåú âàåìä ÷åãîú áàãåï ùðàîø åàí ìà éâàì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings a reason from Erchin.)

áòøëéï ôø÷ äî÷ãéù ùãäå (ãó ëæ.) îô' èòí àçø ãáòìéí ÷åãîéï ìôé ùîåñéôéï çåîù åäúí ôøéê ìä åîùðé:

(a)

Reference: In Erchin (27a) it gives a different reason. The owner has precedence, because he adds a Chomesh. There it challenges this, and answers.

3)

TOSFOS DH ha'Loke'ach. Kanah v'Chayeves bi'Vchorah

úåñôåú ã"ä äìå÷ç ÷ðä åçééáú ááëåøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it needed to teach that it is obligated in Bechorah.)

åàò''â ãùîòéðï ÷ðä

(a)

Implied question: [It should suffice to] teach that he acquired!

àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãçééáú ááëåøä ãìà úéîà ÷ðä îñô÷ àå îãøáðï ÷î''ì ã÷ðä ÷ðéï âîåø

(b)

Answer: It needs to teach that it is obligated in Bechorah, lest one say that he acquired amidst Safek, or mid'Rabanan. [Through teaching v'Chayeves bi'Vchorah,] we learn that he totally acquired.

4)

TOSFOS DH Mah Achuzah Niknis b'Kesef uvi'Shtar uv'Chazakah

úåñôåú ã"ä îä àçåæä ð÷ðéú áëñó åáùèø åáçæ÷ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is only when buying from a Yisrael.)

ôéøåù ëù÷åðä îéùøàì àó òáã ëðòðé ëï ëù÷åðéï îéùøàì

(a)

Explanation: [Land is acquired through money, a document or Chazakah] when one acquires from a Yisrael. The same applies to an Eved Kena'ani, when one buys him from a Yisrael;

àáì áòåáã ëåëáéí ìà îñúáø ùéåòéì ùèø ìôé ù÷ðéï ùèø ìà ùééê áòåáã ëåëáéí ëãàîøé' ô' çæ÷ú äáúéí (á''á ãó ðã:) òåáã ëåëáéí îëé îèà æåæé ìéãéä àéñúìé÷ ìéä åéùøàì ìà ÷ðé òã ãîèà ùèøà ìéãéä

1.

However, for a Nochri, it is unreasonable that a document will help, for Kinyan through a document does not apply to a Nochri, like we say in Bava Basra (54b), that a Nochri [seller], once coins come to his hand, he removes himself [from owning the property], but a Yisrael does not acquire until the document comes to his hand.

5)

TOSFOS DH mi'Yad Amisecha bi'Meshichah Ha mi'Yad Oved Kochavim b'Kesef

úåñôåú ã"ä îéã òîéúê áîùéëä äà îéã òåáã ëåëáéí áëñó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say that a Nochri has a different Kinyan.)

åà''ú ãìîà äà îéã òåáã ëåëáéí áùèø åáçæ÷ä ãçæ÷ä ðîé ùééëà áîèìèìéï àí òùä áäï ùåí úé÷åï ëòéï ðòì åâãø åôøõ á÷ø÷ò

(a)

Question: Perhaps one acquires from a Nochri through a document or Chazakah, for also Chazakah applies to Metaltelim, if he did any Tikun, similar to locking, fencing or breaching in land!

é''ì ãùðé ÷ðééðé' äììå äåééï îöåééï åùééëé æä áîåëø åæä áìå÷ç ùæä (ðåúï) [ö"ì î÷áì - äøù"ù] îòåú åæä îåùê àöìå äçôõ

(b)

Answer: These two Kinyanim are available and applicable - this [applies to] the seller, and this to the buyer. This one receives the coins, and this one pulls the item to himself (his Reshus).

åëï ìøáé éåçðï áñîåê ããøùéðï àéôëà îéã òîéúê áëñó äà ìòåáã ëåëáéí áîùéëä

1.

And similarly according to R. Yochanan below (13b) we expound oppositely. "To Amisecha (your fellow Yisrael, the Kinyan is) with money, but to a Nochri, with Meshichah."

åà''ú îðìï ùäï çùåáéï ÷ðéï ëìì ãîå÷îéðï îñáøà ÷ðéðéï ã÷øà áäðé

(c)

Question: What is the source that [Kesef and Meshichah] are considered a Kinyan at all, that we establish the Kinyanim of the verses to discuss them?

é''ì ãàùëçï ëñó ù÷åðä áî÷åí àçø á÷ø÷ò åáä÷ãù åîùéëä áîöéàä åäô÷ø

(d)

Answer: We find that money acquires elsewhere regarding land and Hekdesh, and Meshichah acquires a Metzi'ah and Hefker.

6)

TOSFOS DH Eima... (Chak Nasan deletes this, and makes this all one Dibur)

úåñôåú ã"ä (àéîà... - ç÷ ðúï îåç÷å, åäëì ãéáåø àçã)

åà''ú ãìîà áçìéôéï ãäåà î÷ðé îîåðå ëããøéù á÷ãåùéï (ãó ç.) îëñó î÷ðúå áëñó äåà ð÷ðä åàéðå ð÷ðä áúåøú úáåàä åëìéí åîàé ðéðäå çìéôéï

(a)

Question: Perhaps [a Nochri's Kinyan] is Chalipin, for he is Makneh his property, like he expounds in Kidushin (8a) "mi'Kesef Miknaso" - [an Eved Ivri] is acquired through Kesef, and not through the law of (Kinyan done with) grain and Kelim. What is [this Kinyan]? It is Chalipin!

åáòáã òáøé äðîëø ìòåáã ëåëáéí ëúéá äàé ÷øà îùîò äà ùàø ëâåï îèìèìéï ÷åðä òåáã ëåëáéí áçìéôéï

1.

And the verse discusses an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri. This implies that a Nochri acquires other things, e.g. Metaltelim, through Chalipin!

åé''ì ãàé ìà àùëçï ëñó àå îùéëä áòåáã ëåëáéí ìà äåä îå÷îéðï ìéä áçìéôéï

(b)

Answer #1: If we do not find Kesef of Meshichah in [Kinyanim of] a Nochri, we would not establish the verse for Chalipin!

åòé''ì äàé ã÷àîø òåáã ëåëáéí áçãà ìàå áçìéôéï ùùåä áòåáã ëåëáéí åáéùøàì îééøé àìà á÷ðéï çãù ëâåï ëñó àå îùéëä

(c)

Answer #2: It says that a Nochri acquires through one [Kinyan] - this does not discuss Chalipin, which is the same for a Nochri and Yisrael, rather, a new Kinyan, e.g. Kesef or Meshichah. (It is new, i.e. it does not apply to Yisrael.)

7)

TOSFOS DH (Le'eil) Im Gufo Kani

úåñôåú ã"ä (ìòéì) àí âåôå ÷ðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos supports R. Tam from our Gemara.)

àí âåôå ãéùøàì ÷ðé ìéä òåáã ëåëáéí áëñó ëå'

(a)

Explanation: If a Nochri acquires a Yisrael's body through money [all the more so, his property]!

îãìà ôøéê äëà àí ëï àôé' áùèø åçæ÷ä ðîé ëãôøéê ìòéì éù øàéä ìôø''ú ãîôøù ôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éã:) àùëçï òáã òáøé äðîëø ìòåáã ëåëáéí ùëì ÷ðééðå áëñó

(b)

Inference: Since it did not ask here "if so, even through a document or Chazakah [a Nochri should acquires a Yisrael's property]", like it asked above, this proves that R. Tam is correct. He explained in Kidushin (14b, regarding) "we find an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri [is acquired through Kesef], for his entire Kinyan is Kesef"...

ëìåîø ëì ÷ðéðå ãòåáã ëåëáéí áòáã òáøé áëñó ëãëúéá (åé÷øà ëä) îëñó î÷ðúå åìà áùèø åçæ÷ä ëãîåëç äëà

1.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): I.e. a Nochri acquires an Eved Ivri only through Kesef, like it is written "mi'Kesef Miknaso", and not through a document or Chazakah, like is proven here.

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' ùí ãëì ãáø ÷ðééðå áëñó ëããøùéðï äëà îéã òîéúê áîùéëä äà îéã òåáã ëåëáéí áëñó

2.

Explanation #2 (Rashi there): For everything, a Nochri's Kinyan is Kesef, like we expound here "to Amisecha with Meshichah, but to a Nochri, with Kesef."

å÷ùä ãäàé ãøùà ìøéù ì÷éù äéà åäìëä ëø' éåçðï

3.

Question: That Drashah is according to Reish Lakish, and the Halachah follows R. Yochanan!

åà''ú àëúé òåáã ëåëáé' ÷åðä éùøàì áçæ÷ä ëãàîø âéèéï (ãó ìç.) îðéï ìòåáã ëåëáéí ù÷åðä éùøàì áçæ÷ä ùðàîø åéùá îîðå ùáé

(c)

Question: Still, a Nochri acquires a Yisrael through Chazakah, like it says in Gitin (38a) 'what is the source that a Nochri acquires a Yisrael through Chazakah? It says "va'Yoshb Mimenu Shevi"'!

é''ì ãääéà çæ÷ä (ëùéù îìçîä äåà) [ö"ì ëéáåù îìçîä - ç÷ ðúï] åäåà äãéï îîåðå ëãàîø çåìéï (ãó ñ:) òîåï åîåàá èéäøå áñéçåï:

(d)

Answer: That Chazakah is conquest in war, and the same applies to his property, like it says in Chulin (60b) "Amon and Mo'av were permitted through Sichon." (Yisrael were forbidden to take their land. Since Sichon conquered them, it was no longer considered theirs. "His property" connotes a Yisrael's, but Tosfos brings a proof that a Nochri acquires a Nochri's! Perhaps Tosfos holds that it is unreasonable to distinguish.

13b----------------------------------------13b

8)

TOSFOS DH Devar Torah Ma'os Konos

úåñôåú ã"ä ãáø úåøä îòåú ÷åðåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish expound.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãëúéá áä÷ãù åðúï äëñó å÷í ìå åâîø äãéåè îä÷ãù

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It says about Hekdesh 'v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo', and we learn a person from Hekdesh.

åà''ú ìøéù ì÷éù ãàîø îùéëä îôåøùú îï äúåøä ìéâîø ùé÷ðä ëñó áäãéåè ëîå áä÷ãù åîùéëä ðîé ú÷ðé áä÷ãù ëîå áäãéåè

(b)

Question: According to Reish Lakish, who says that Meshichah is explicit in the Torah, he should learn that Kesef acquires for people, like regarding Hekdesh, and Meshichah acquires also for Hekdesh, like for people!

åúéøõ äøá øáé éäåãä áø ðúï ãîùéëä ìà ùééëà áä÷ãù ãëì äéëà ãàéúéä áé âæà ãøçîðà àéúéä åìäëé ùééê èôé ëñó )îáäãéåè ùáäãéåè( [ö"ì áä÷ãù îáäãéåè åáäãéåè - äá"ç] ãàôùø áîùéëä ìà éäà (àìà) [ö"ì ìå - äá"ç] ÷ðéï àçø

(c)

Answer #1 (R. Yehudah bar Nasan): Meshichah does not apply to Hekdesh, for wherever it is, it is in Hash-m's storehouse. Therefore, Kesef applies to Hekdesh more than to a person. And a person, who can do Meshichah, he does not have another Kinyan.

åðøàä ìø''é ãî÷øà ðôé÷ ìéä ùôéø ãøùéðï îéã òîéúê áîùéëä äà îéã òåáã ëåëáéí áëñó åîãòåáã ëåëáéí áçãà éùøàì ðîé áçãà ãùðéäí ìîãéï æä (òì æä) [ö"ì îæä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã]

(d)

Answer #2 (Ri): He properly learns from verses. We expound "to Amisecha with Meshichah, but to a Nochri, with Kesef." And since a Nochri has one [Kinyan], also a Yisrael has one, for they are learned from each other.

ãìéëà ìîéîø (ãìà îùúòé ÷øà àìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã îåç÷å) ãòåáã ëåëáéí áäà àå áäà åëï éùøàì

(e)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps a Nochri acquires with this or this (Kesef or Meshichah), and similarly a Yisrael!

ãà''ë äéå ùåéï

(f)

Rejection: If so, they would be the same. ("To Amisecha..." implies that they are different.)

åàôéìå àí úéîöé ìåîø ùé÷ðä çìéôéï áéùøàì åìà áòåáã ëåëáéí åìà ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(g)

Implied question: If you will say that Chalipin acquires for a Yisrael, but not for a Nochri, unlike I explained above (13a DH Eima, you could say that they are the same regarding Kesef and Meshichah, and different regarding Chalipin)!

îöé ìîéîø ãìà îùúòé ÷øà àìà á÷ðéðéï äøâéìéï åîöåééï ëâåï ëñó åîùéëä åáäðê ìîãéï éùøàì åòåáã ëåëáéí æä îæä

(h)

Answer: We can say that the verse discusses only common, available Kinyanim such as Kesef and Meshichah. Regarding these, we learn a Yisrael and a Nochri from each other.

åòåã îôøù ø' èòîà ãø' éåçðï ãîòåú ÷åðåú îâåôéä ã÷øà ãàå ÷ðä îéã òîéúê ãñúí ÷ðéï ã÷øà áîòåú ëãëúéá (éøîéä ìá) ùãåú áëñó é÷ðå åëúéá îëñó î÷ðúå (åé÷øà ëä)

(i)

Explanation #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): R. Yochanan holds that coins acquire due to the verse itself "Oh Kano mi'Yad Amisecha." Stam Kinyan of the Torah is coins, like it says "Sados ba'Kesef Yiknu", and "mi'Kesef Miknaso."

9)

TOSFOS DH k'Man d'Amar Gezel ha'Kena'ani Mutar

úåñôåú ã"ä ëî''ã âæì äëðòðé îåúø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what this opinion permits.)

ô''ä ôìåâúà áäâåæì áúøà (á''÷ ÷éâ:)

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is an argument in Bava Kama (113b).

åëåìä ùîòúà ãäúí îåëç ãàñåø åáäô÷òú äìåàúå ôìéâé

(b)

Objection: The entire Sugya there proves that it is forbidden! They argue about uprooting his loan (that is owed to him, but no one permits stealing from him).

àáì áôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ðæ.) úðéà âæì åâðá åëï éôú úåàø éùøàì áëðòðé îåúø

(c)

Explanation #2: However, in Sanhedrin (57a) a Beraisa teaches "robbery and theft, and also Eshes Yefas To'ar (if she is married, taking her is like stealing from her husband) - it is permitted for a Yisrael [to take] from a Kena'ani."

åáô' äî÷áì (á''î ãó ÷éà:) ðîé àîø çã ìîéùøé âæéìå ùì ëðòðé åçã ìîéùøé òåù÷å âáé øòéê åàçéê

1.

And also in Bava Metzi'a (111b), it says "one permits Gezel of (from) a Kena'ani, and one permits Oshko (withholding his wages) regarding "Re'echa" and "Achicha".

åà''ú åâæì äëðòðé äéëé ùøé äëúéá (åé÷øà ëæ) åçùá òí ÷åðäå

(d)

Question: How is Gezel Kena'ani permitted? It says "v'Chishev Im Konehu" (one who redeems an Eved Ivri from a Nochri must pay the proper amount)!

åáëðòðé ùäåà úçú éãê îùúòé ãàé àéï úçú éãå îé öééú ìôé ùðéí )ùòáø( [ö"ì ùòã - ùéèä î÷åáöú, äøù"ù] äéåáì

1.

(Do not say that it discusses when the Nochrim are in control, but when Yisrael are in control, Gezel is permitted.) The verse discusses when [the Nochri] is under your control. If he is not under your control, will he agree to [let you redeem him] based on the number of years until Yovel?! (He will demand the full amount he paid, and perhaps even more!)

é''ì äéëà ãàéëà çìåì äùí åãàé àñåø åëé ùøéú äéëà ãàéú ìéä ìàéùúîåèé åâæì îîðå áòìéìä àå áëîä òðééðéí

(e)

Answer: When there is Chilul Hash-m, surely [Gezel Nochri] is forbidden. It is permitted [according to one opinion] when one can evade (blatant robbery), and he steals through [improper] claims or various ways.

10)

TOSFOS DH v'Iy Amrat Ma'os Konos Meshichah Lamah Li

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé àîøú îòåú ÷åðåú îùéëä ìîä ìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Sugya in Avodah Zarah.)

úéîä ãáô' áúøà ãò''æ (ãó òà:) îééúé äê áøééúà ìîéã÷ àéôëà îøéùà

(a)

Question: In Avodah Zarah (71b) it brings this Beraisa to infer oppositely from the Reisha!

ã÷àîø åàé àîøú îùéëä áòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åðä àîàé éçæéø

1.

It says "if you will say that Meshichah acquires regarding a Nochri, why may he return?!" (The Yisrael already acquired the idolatry. Returning it is like selling it back!)

åàåîø ø''é ãäî÷ùä ñåáø äëà åäúí ãúøåééäå áòéðï áëðòðé îùéëä åîòåú

(b)

Answer (Ri): The Makshan holds here and there that both of them are needed regarding a Nochri, Meshichah and coins.

åäùúà ðéçà ìéä äëà åäúí øéùà åñéôà

(c)

Support: Now [we understand] why [the Makshan] was content here and there [and did not ask a contradiction between] the Reisha and the Seifa.

11)

TOSFOS DH Hachi ka'Amar Af Al Pi she'Nasan Ma'os...

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé ÷àîø àò''ô ùðúï îòåú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos dispels potential reasons to forbid retracting.)

åà''ú åäà àéëà îé ùôøò

(a)

Question: There is a [curse] Mi she'Para [that he must accept if he retracts]!

éù ìåîø ëù÷áì òìéå ìãåï áãéðé éùøàì åîé ùôøò àéï æä ãéï

(b)

Answer #1: He accepted to act according to Dinei (the laws of) Yisrael. Mi she'Para is not a Din.

à''ð ëîå ùîôøù ø''ú áôø÷ äæäá (á''î îæ:) ãìòðéï éå÷øà åæåìà (öøéê) [ö"ì ùééê - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] îé ùôøò àáì ìà áî÷åí ùîôñéã ìâîøé

(c)

Answer #2: We can answer like R. Tam explained in Bava Metzi'a 47b. Mi she'Para applies [to one who retracts due] to a change in price, but not in a case when he would totally lose.

åàò''â ãáñîåê (îôåøù îùåí) [ö"ì àôøù ãîùåí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãáøéí áòìîà àé äåä áäå îùåí îçåñøé àîðä äéä ðàñø îùåí ãîçæé ëòáåãú ëåëáéí áéã éùøàì

(d)

Implied question: Below (14a DH v'Hani), I will explain that if Mechusar Emanah applied to [retracting from] mere words, it would be forbidden [to return] because it looks like idolatry in a Yisrael's hand (he acquired, and now he sells it back)!

(åàáéé) [ö"ì àáéé - îäøù"à åàçøéí] ìà çééù ìîéçæé òáåãú ëåëáéí áéã éùøàì

(e)

Answer #1: Abaye is not concerned for what looks like idolatry in a Yisrael's hand.

åòåã ãëàï ìà îéçæé ëìì ëéåï ãîé ùôøò ìéëà ëãôøéùéú (åìéëà) [ö"ì ìéëà - îäøù"à åàçøéí] ðîé îùåí îçåñøé àîðä áòåáã ëåëáéí (èôé îáéùøàì) [ö"ì ëîå áéùøàì]

(f)

Answer #2: Here it does not look at all [like idolatry in a Yisrael's hand]. Since there is no Mi she'Para, there is not Mechusar Emanah regarding a Nochri, just like regarding a Yisrael.

12)

TOSFOS DH d'Kivan d'Yahiv Zuzei Iba'i Lei Le'iyunei v'Hadar Mamshich

úåñôåú ã"ä ãëéåï ãéäéá æåæé àéáòé ìéä ìòéåðé åäãø îîùéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say so in other cases of Mekach Ta'os.)

åàó òì âá ãáùàø î÷ç èòåú ìà àîøéðï äëé

(a)

Implied question: We do not say so in other cases of Mekach Ta'os!

ùàðé ìå÷ç âøåèàåú îéã òåáã ëåëáéí ãàéáòé ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúà èôé ùîà éù áäï òáåãú ëåëáéí

(b)

Answer: One who buys pieces of silver from a Nochri is different. It should cross his mind more, perhaps there is idolatry among them.

13)

TOSFOS DH Rav Ashi Amar mid'Reisha Meshichah Einah Koneh

úåñôåú ã"ä øá àùé àîø îãøéùà îùéëä àéðä ÷åðä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings that R. Tam rules like R. Yochanan.)

ìôé îä ùøâéì ø''ú ìôñå÷ ëø' éåçðï ãàîø ãáø úåøä îòåú ÷åðåú îùåí ãôñé÷ øáà áäçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìæ.) áëì ãåëúà ëååúéä äéëà ãôìéâ òìéä øéù ì÷éù áø îúìú

(a)

Pesak: R. Tam normally rules like R. Yochanan, that mid'Oraisa coins acquire, because Rava rules like him in Yevamos (37a) in every place that he argues with Reish Lakish, except for three (and this is not one of the exceptions).

÷ùä îëàï ãøá àùé ãäåà áúøà éåúø îøáà ñáø ëøéù ì÷éù ãîùéëä îôåøùú îï äúåøä

(b)

Question: Here it is difficult, for Rav Ashi, who was after Rava, holds like Reish Lakish that Meshichah is explicit in the Torah!

îã÷àîø îùéëä áòåáã ëåëáéí ìà ÷ðé àìîà ããøùéðï ìòîéúê áîùéëä äà ìòåáã ëåëáéí áëñó

1.

Since he said that Meshichah of a Nochri does not acquire, this shows that we expound "to Amisecha with Meshichah, but to a Nochri, with Kesef";

ãàé ëøáé éåçðï äà àîø ìòîéúê áëñó äà ìòåáã ëåëáéí áîùéëä

2.

If [he held] like R. Yochanan, [this cannot be, for R. Yochanan] said that "to Amisecha with Kesef, but to a Nochri, with Meshichah"!

åé''ì ãøá àùé ãäëà äãø áéä ìâáé àîéîø ëãîåëç ôø÷ áúøà ãîñëú ò''æ (ãó òà.) âáé äà ãàîø àîéîø îùéëä áòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åðä

(c)

Answer #1: Rav Ashi here retracted to [hold like] Ameimar, like is proven in Avodah Zarah (71a) regarding Ameimar's teaching that Meshichah of a Nochri acquires;

úãò ãäðé ôøñàé îùãøå ôøãùðé àäããé åìà äãøé áäå

1.

Citation (71a) Support: Persians send Pardashnei (gifts to friends, or samples of grain to prospective buyers), and they do not retract.

åù÷ìå åèøå äúí øáéðà åøá àùé áääéà îéìúà åáñåó ùîòúà îñ÷éðï ù''î îùéëä áòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åðä ù''î

2.

Ravina and Rav Ashi debate the matter there, and at the end of the Sugya we conclude "this shows that Meshichah of Nochrim acquires."

åâí øáéðà î÷ùä äúí ìøá àùé îãøáé éåçðï ìáï ðç åìà ÷à''ì øá àùé øáé éåçðï ìèòîéä ãàîø ãáø úåøä îòåú ÷åðåú (îëàï îãó äáà) åàðà ëøéù ì÷éù ñáéøà ìé

(d)

Support: Also, Ravina challenged Rav Ashi there from R. Yochanan's teaching about a Ben Noach, and Rav Ashi did not answer "R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere, that mid'Oraisa coins acquire, and I hold like Reish Lakish!"

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF