First Tosfos is mechadesh that Bal Tash'heh doesn't apppky if other business is occupying the hirer. Does Rashi agree? When Rashi says mi'Yom ha'Shuk v'Eilach does he mean he is oiver right away even though he only got funds that day at the shuk? Or does he mean that opposed to being oiver the day after the hiring ended he is only first oiver if he delays paying after he was funded with capital from the shuk sales but if he pays then he is not oiver - in concept similar to point of Tosfos?
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
1) From what Rashi writes (in DH v'Eima) that "if I do not pay I will not transgress," it appears that he will not transgress anything, even Bal Tash'heh. Tosfos (cited by the Beis Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 339:6) says that he does not even transgress Bal Tash'heh if he is busy with other work. In the Shulchan Aruch (CM 339:7), the Heter of "Tarud" is also mentioned. There, it is mentioned in connection with the prohibition of "Lech v'Shav," but it does seem from the Shulchan Aruch that if he is busy with other work he does not transgress anything.
There is the opinion of the Nimukei Yosef (67b of the pages of the Rif, DH Gemara Yehudah, and Hagohos M"y, #20) which maintains that he transgresses Bal Tash'heh even if he is busy with other work, but the Halachah does not follow this opinion, and I do not see any reason to say that Rashi disagrees with Tosfos.
2) The Gemara explains that we are referring to businessmen who obtain money only on market day. However, once they get the money on market day, they transgress if they do not pay up on the day.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom