ERCHIN 30 (13 Tamuz) - Today's Dafyomi study is dedicated to the blessed memory of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Seymour Ira Gottlieb (Yitzchak Shimon ben Chaim Shlomo Yosef ha'Levi, Z"L), who died in World War II on the 13th of Tamuz 5704 in the battle of St. Lo, France, fighting the Nazis to save his Jewish brethren in Europe.

1)

TOSFOS DH V'LO YADA'ANA HEI MINAYHU HA'MEKACH BATEIL

úåñ' ã"ä åìà éãòðà äé îéðééäå äî÷ç áèì

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Rav Anan's quandary and explains a Sugya in Bava Metzi'a.)

åàé ÷ùéà ôùéèà ãà'äê ã'äîåëø ùãäå áùðú äéåáì' ÷àîø ùîåàì ãäî÷ç áèì åîòåú çåæøéí ...

(a)

Question: And if you ask 'It is obvious that when Shmuel rules the sale is Bateil and the money ie returned, he is referring to 'ha'Mocher Sadeihu bi'Shenas ha'Yovel' ...

ãàé îòåú àáåãéï, îàé [àéëà] áéï øá ìùîåàì?

1.

Question (cont.): Because, if he would lose the money, what would be the difference between Rav and Shmuel?

àéëà áéðééäå àé ùîéè ìå÷ç å÷öõ àéìðåú ùäéå áä. ìøá ãàîø 'îëåøä [äéà]' -ùãä äãøà áòéðà, åàéìðåú ã÷õ, ÷õ...

(b)

Answer #1: The difference is - if the purchaser chopped down the trees that were in it. According to Rav who declares the sale valid - the field goes back as itis, but the trees that he chopped down, he may retain ...

ìùîåàì ãàîø 'àéðä îëåøä åîòåú îúðä' -äãøé àéìðåú, åàò"â ãìå÷ç ìà ù÷éì æåæé

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas according to Shmuel, who says that the sale is not valid and the money is a gift - the trees go back to the owner, despite the fact that the purchaser does not get his money back.

àé ðîé, ëâåï ùîëø òîä îèìèìéï, åäçæé÷ äìå÷ç á÷ø÷òåú åìà îùê äîèìèìéï...

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, where together with the firld, he sold Metalt'lin, and where the purchaser made a Chazakah on the field but did not make a Meshichah on the Metzlt'lin ...

ã÷ééîà ìï 'ðëñéí ùàéï ìäï àçøéåú ð÷ðéí òí ðëñéí ùéù ìäï àçøéåú áëñó áùèø åáçæ÷ä' ,åàéï öøéê îùéëä ...

1.

Answer #2: And we Pasken that 'Metalt'lin can be acquired together with Karka, via money, a Sh'tar or Chazakah, and a Meshichah is not necessary ...

ìøá ãàîø 'îëåøä [åéåöàä]' -ùãä äãøà åîèìèìé îé÷ðå; ìùîåàì ãàîø 'àéðä îëåøä åîòåú îúðä,' ìà îé÷ðå îèìèìé, ãçæ÷ä ã÷ø÷ò ìà äåé çæ÷ä. òë"ì øù"é.

2.

Answer #2 (cont.): According to Rav, who holds 'Mechurah ve'Yotz'ah' - the field will go back whilsts the Metlt'lin are acquired, whereas according to Shmuel, who holds 'Einah Mechurah u'Ma'os Matanah', the Metalt'lin are not acquired, since the Chazakah on the Karka was not a Chazakah (Until here is the wording of Rashi).

åìôé äàé ùôøù"é ìøá ãàîø îëåøä åçåæø ìáòìéå îéã, î"î îé÷ðå îèìèìéï áäãééäå, î÷ùéï äòåìí îääéà ãô"÷ ãá"î (ãó éà.) ...

(d)

Introduction to Question: According to Rashi's explanation that Rav holds that although the sale is valid but it reverts to the owner, he nevertheless acquires the Metalt'lin with it, they query him from the first Perek in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 11a) ...

'îòùä áø"â åæ÷ðéí ùäéå áàéí áñôéðä; àîø "îòùø ùàðé òúéã ìîåã ðúåï ìéäåùò åî÷åîå îåùëø ìå- àéëà áñéôà ãðú÷áìå ùëø æä îæä ...

1.

Introduction to Question: From the episode with Raban Gamliel and the elders who were traveling in a boat, where Raban Gamliel declared 'The Ma'aser that I am going to measure is given to Yehoshua and its location is rented to him' - the Seifa adds that he paid rent for the location ...

åàîàé? ìéúáé ääåà àúøà áîúðä ò"î ìäçæéø...

(e)

Question #1: Why did he need to pay rent? Why could he not give it to him as a Matanah on condition that he returns it ...

àå ìé÷ðé ìå áçìéôéï ãñåãø?

(f)

Question #2: Or to acquire it via a Kinyan Chalipin with a cloth (Note: It is only the first question that Tosfos asks specifically on Rashi [Avodah Berurah])

àé ðîé, ìéùééìéä ääåà àúøà åé÷ðä ìéä á÷ðéï ñåãø?

(g)

Question #3: Alternatively, why not lend lend him the location and acquire it with a Kinyan Sudar?

åé"ì, ãëì ãáø äçåæø ìáòìéí ëâåï îúðä ò"î ìäçæéø, à"ð ùàìä àå ùëéøåú, áëåìí ìà îé÷ðå áçìéôéï...

(h)

Answer: Anything that goes back to the owner, such as a Matanah al-M'nas Lehachzir, a loan or rental, canno be acquired via Chalipin ...

îùåí ãäåä ëîå èåáú äðàä, ãàîøéðï (ùí:) ãàéðä îîåðà ì÷ðåú áçìéôéï.

1.

Reason: Since it is similar to Tovas Hana'ah (an abstract benefit) of which the Gemara says there (on Amud Beis) that it is not Mamon to acquire with Chalipin.

åîù"ä äåöøê ùéú÷áìå îòåú æä îæä.

(i)

Conclusion: That is why he had to receive money from Rebbi Yehoshua.

2)

TOSFOS DH DILMA EINAH MECHURAH U'MA'OS MATANAH MIDI D'HAVAH A'MEKADESH ACHOSO

úåñ' ã"ä ãìîà àéðä îëåøä åîòåú îúðä îéãé ãäåä à'î÷ãù àçåúå

(Summary: Tosfos explains how this does not comply with the Gemara's Maskana.)

åîéäå ìôé äàîú ùäåëçðå ãîòåú çåæøéí, àîøé' ãìà ãîé ìî÷ãù àçåúå ...

(a)

Conclusion: According to the ultimate explanation - as the Gemara proved earlier, on Daf 29b (Avodah Berurah) that the money is returned, we say that it is not comparable to 'Mekadesh Achoso' ...

ìôé ù'àãí éåãò ùàéï ÷ãåùéï úåôñéï áàçåúå, åâîø åðúï ìùí îúðä' ...

(b)

Reason: Since 'Everybody knows that Kidushin does not take effect on his sister, so he gives the money in the form of a gift' ...

àáì áîåëø ùãäå áùðú äéåáì, àéï äòåìí á÷éàéï áëê, åìà âîø ìùåí îúðä.

1.

Reason (cont.): Whereas in the case of someone who sells his field in the Yovel, people are generally experts and do not therefore give the money as a gift.

3)

TOSFOS DH LO YIMKOR B'RACHOK V'YIG'AL B'KAROV

úåñ' ã"ä ìà éîëåø áøçå÷ åéâàåì á÷øåá

(Summary: Tosfos points out that the reverse is equally correct.)

ä"ä àéôëà ãìà...

(a)

Implied Question: The same will apply to the reverse case ...

àìà àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è.

(b)

Answer: Only the Gemara mentions the norm.

4)

TOSFOS DH IKA BEINAIHU D'AYAKER V'ZAL V'AYAKER

úåñ' ã"ä àéëà áéðééäå ãàéé÷ø åæì åàéé÷ø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara establishes the Machloles by two purchasers.)

ä"ä ãäåä îöé ìîéîø ãàéé÷ø åæì áìå÷ç àçã áìáã ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have mentioned where the price was originally high and it went down, by one purchaser alone ...

ãàéìå ìøáé ãìà ãøéù äòåãó áéï ìàéù àùø îëø áéï ìàéù àùø áúåëä, öøéê ìâåàìä ëôé äîëø, ãäééðå áéå÷ø ...

1.

Implied Question (cont.): In which case, according to Rebbi who does not contend with the balance, whether it is the seller or the man who currently owns the field, and he redeems it according to the sale value, which is the more expensive price.

åìøáé ãåñúàé áøáé éäåãä àæìéðï áúø äòìåé ùá÷ø÷ò, åðâàìú ëôé äòìåé ...

2.

Implied Question (concl.): Whereas according to Dustai b'Rebbi Yehudah we go after the current balance of the land, and it is redeemed accordingly.

àìà ìôé ãàééøé áîúðéúéï áùðé îåëøéï, ðéçà ìéä ìîéð÷è ðîé àéëà áéðééäå áùðé îåëøéï.

(b)

Answer: Only since the Mishnah is speaking about two sellers, the Gemara prefers to speak about two sellers as well.

30b----------------------------------------30b

5)

TOSFOS DH D'SANYA KI TOV LO IMACH

úåñ' ã"ä ãúðéà ëé èåá ìå òîê

(Summary: Tosfos amends the Text.)

äëé àéúà áëì äñôøéí.

(a)

Refuted Text: This is how the text reads according to all the Sefarim.

åðøàä ãìà âøñéðï äëé ...

(b)

Refutation: However this is not the correct text ...

ãàéï æä ëé àí ñéôåø ãáøéí ùì äòáã "ëé àäáê åàú áéúê ëé èåá ìå òîê" -åàéï æä öéååé!

1.

Reason: Since it is merely the he narrative concerning the Eved - "because he loves you since he had it good with with you"; it is not a command!

àìà âøñ ëãàéúà áñéôøé "ëúåùá ëùëéø éäéä òîê" ãäééðå öéååé.

(c)

Authentic Text: The text therefore conforms to that of the Sifri - "ke'Soshav ke'Sachir Yih'yeh Imach", which is a command.

6)

TOSFOS DH KAMAH KASHAH AVKAH SHEL SHEVI'IS

úåñ' ã"ä ëîä ÷ùä àá÷ä ùì ùáéòéú

(Summary: Tosfos defines 'Avkah shel Shevi'is and explainshow the punishment fits the crime.)

ôéøåù ãäééðå ñçåøä- ãàéï æä òé÷ø äàéñåø, ãòé÷ø äàéñåø äåà çøéùä åæøéòä.

(a)

Clarification: This refers to doing business (with Sh'mitah produce) - which is not the main Isur, since the main Isur is plowing and planting.

åàí úàîø, åîðìï ãòì éãé ñçåøä áìáã ÷ì÷åìéí àìå ùîôøù ëàï áàéï òìéå? ãìîà òì éãé çøéùä åæøéòä ãå÷à äí áàéí?

(b)

Question: How do we know that all the punishments mentioned here come as a result of business alone, and not as a result of plowing and planting?

åé"ì, ãäééðå 'îãä ëðâã îãä' -ò"é ùîëø ôéøåú ùáéòéú äåà îåëø àú àùø ìå.

(c)

Answer: It is 'measure for measure', in that because he sold the fruits of Sh'mitah, he now has to sell all that he owns.

7)

TOSFOS DH O L'EIKER ZEH HA'NIMKAR LA'AVODAS KOCHAVIM ATZMAH

úåñ' ã"ä àå ìò÷ø æä äðîëø ìòáåãú ëåëáéí òöîä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Torah uses the word 'le'Eiker'.)

ìôé ùñåôï ùì òáåãåú ëåëáéí ìéò÷ø ãøéù äëé.

(a)

Clarification: It makes this D'rashah because in the end Avodas-Kochavim will be destroyed.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'EIMA HEICHA D'AVAD TARTI U'PAYSHI ARBA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åàéîà äéëà ãòáã úøúé åôééùé ã' ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation .)

ôéøù øù"é åìà áäëñéó åäùáéç îéùúòé ÷øà.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Pasuk is not referring to where the value of the land declined or rose.

åì"ð...

(b)

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

ãà"ë àéï æä ëé àí îôùèéä ã÷øà åáìà ééúåø ùîòéðï ìéä, åîùîò ãøá ðçîï áø éöç÷ îéúåøà ÷à îôé÷?

1.

Reason: Because if that is so, this is merely the simple explanation of the Pasuk, which one can learn without any Yitur (extra letters), whereas it is implied that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from a Yitur?

ìëï ðøàä ìôøù 'åàéîà äéëà ãòáã úøúé åôééù àøáò, ðéúéá ìéä àøáò î"ëñó î÷ðúå" áéï äëñéó áéï äùáéç...

(c)

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means is - 'Let us say that where he worked two years and four remained, he should pay him four "from the money of the sale" (which is the closest), irrespective of whether it depreciated or improved ...

åäéëà ãòáã àøáò åôééù ìéä úøúé, ðéúéá ìéä úøúé "ëôé ùðéå" áéï äëñéó áéï äùáéç,

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas where he worked four years and two remain, he should give him two "according to his current value, irrespective of whether it depreciated or improved ...

åìäëé àúà éúåøà ã÷øà ,ãìòåìí ìà àçø äñîåê àæìéðï.

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.):Therefore the extra Pasuk (i.e. the 'BZeis' in "ba'Shanim") to teach us that we do not go after the closeness, but to the more lenient of the two (See Avodah Berurah).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF