PEREK 'HA'SOCHER ES HA'POEL'

1) TOSFOS DH MAI TAI'MA

תוספות ד"ה מ"ט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the give and take of the Gemara's analysis of why wages received for working with Yayin Nesech are forbidden from benefit.)

מתוך השיטה משמע כי מעתה היה יודע שיין נסך תופס דמיו כעבודת כוכבים ואעפ"כ היה רוצה לדמות שכר יין נסך לדמי ערלה ולשכר שביעית אע"ג דאיכא ביין נסך תרי חומרי איסור הנאה ותופס דמיו

(a) Observation: The Gemara implies that it knew that Yayin Nesech causes money exchanged for it to become forbidden as does idolatry. Even so, it still wanted to compare the wages earned through working with Yayin Nesech to money exchanged for Orlah or Shevi'is. This is despite the fact that Yayin Nesech has two stringencies: it is forbidden from benefit and it causes money exchanged for it to become forbidden from benefit as well. (The Avodah Berurah gives various explanations regarding how Tosfos saw this implied in our Gemara when the simple reading of the Gemara indicates that the opposite is true.)

והכי פריך מ"ט שכרו אסור נהי דתופס דמיו כעבודת כוכבים מ"מ שכרו אין בו איסור אלא מדרבנן ואינו חשוב כדמי יין נסך ומה טעם גזרו עליו

(b) Explanation: The Gemara therefore asks the following question. Why are the wages forbidden from benefit? Even though the money exchanged for it is forbidden from benefit like money exchanged for idolatry, wages (earned while working with Yayin Nesech) are only a Rabbinic prohibition. It is not the same as money exchanged directly for Yayin Nesech. Why, then, did they decree that this too is forbidden from benefit?

אילימא משום דיין נסך גופיה אסור בהנאה מן התורה הלכך גזרו על שכרו אטו הגוף והרי ערלה וכלאי הכרם דאסורין בהנאה מן התורה ולא גזרו על הדמים אטו הגוף

1. Explanation (cont.): If it is because Yayin Nesech itself is prohibited from benefit according to Torah law, and they therefore decreed that wages earned are decreed forbidden due to the Yayin Nesech itself, Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem are also prohibited from benefit according to Torah law, and yet there is no decree regarding the money due to the Torah prohibition from benefit on Orlah.

ואין להחמיר כאן בשכר יותר מהתם בדמים דהשתא דמים שמצינו איסורי הנאה שגם דמיהם אסורין מן התורה כמו הגוף באותן שתופסין דמיהן ואפילו הכי לא גזרו דמים אטו גוף באותן שאין תופסין דמיהם שכר שאינו אסור בשום איסור הנאה מן התורה כל שכן שלא נגזר שכר אטו הגוף

2. Explanation (cont.): There is no reason to be more stringent here regarding wages than regarding money exchanged for Orlah etc. If we find regarding certain things that are prohibited from benefit that the money exchanged for them is prohibited according to Torah law, but yet we do not find that a decree was made by the Rabbanan that this should also be the case regarding money exchanged for similar items prohibited by the Torah from benefit when the Torah did not declare the money exchanged prohibited, certainly wages which the Torah never prohibited from benefit should not be decreed forbidden due to the item being prohibited from benefit!

ומשני אלא הואיל ותופס דמיו כעבודת כוכבים כלומר שכר בגוף לא מיחליף אבל שכר בדמים מיחליף

3. Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that being that Yayin Nesech makes money exchanged for it prohibited as does idolatry, it is forbidden. In other words, the Gemara answers that while one would not mix up wages with the item itself, they would mix up wages with the money exchanged for the item. (Being that the money exchanged is prohibited from benefit, we also decree that the wages are forbidden from benefit.)

ופריך והרי שביעית דתופסת דמיה וקאמר שכרו מותר דמשמע לגמרי ולא נתפס בקדושת שביעית ולא גזרינן שכר שביעית אטו דמי שביעית

4. Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, doesn't Shemitah cause money exchanged for it to have Kedushas Shevi'is, yet we say that the wages are permitted! This indicates the wages are completely permitted, and that they are not even considered to have Kedushas Shevi'is. We do not decree wages of Shemitah are forbidden due to the fact that money exchanged for Shemitah produce has Kedushas Shevi'is! (We therefore should similarly not make this decree regarding wages of Yayin Nesech!)

ואין לומר דשאני יין נסך דאית ביה תרי חומרי איסור הנאה ותופס דמיו

i. Implied Question: One cannot say that Yayin Nesech is different as it has two stringencies in that it is forbidden from benefit and money exchanged for it is forbidden from benefit.

דלא מיחליף שכר בדמים בתרי חומרי יותר מבחומרא אחת

ii. Answer: This is because just as wages are not confused with money exchanged for an item that has only one stringent aspect, so too is not confused regarding an item that has two stringent aspects (i.e. the added stringency is no reason to make a decree).

ומסיק א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן קנס הוא שקנסו בו ודאי משום גזרה לא שייך למיגזר כדפרי' דאי מטעם מיחליף הוא לא היה לנו לחלק בין פועל דיין נסך לפועל דשביעית וכן בשביעית גופיה לא היה לחלק בין חמרים לפועל

5. Explanation (cont.): The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Avahu says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that this is a fine, and it certainly does have the reasoning to make it into a decree, as I have explained. If the reason would be because it is confused with money exchanged for it, we should not differentiate between a worker for Yayin Nesech and worker for Shevi'is. We also should not differentiate regarding Shevi'is between donkey drivers and workers.

אלא מטעם קנס הוא וחכמים שקנסו ראו לקנוס בחמרים יותר משום דנפיש אגרייהו וכן פועל דיין נסך משום חומרא דיין נסך כדמסיק רבא בסמוך

6. Explanation (cont.): Rather, this is due to a fine. The Chachamim understood that donkey drivers should receive this fine because they receive higher wages. They also understood that even workers for Yayin Nesech should receive this fine due to the stringency of Yayin Nesech, as Rava concludes later.

ודוקא בשנים אלו החמירו יין נסך ושביעית לפי שתופסין דמיהן ראוי לקנוס בשכר דהוי קצת כעין דמים אבל בשאר איסורי הנאה שאין תופסין דמיהם מסתבר דלא קנסו

7. Explanation (cont.): Only regarding these two categories, Yayin Nesech and Shemitah, were Chazal stringent. Being that the money exchanged for them is like them, it is fitting to fine one who receives wages for working with these things, as it is somewhat similar to the money exchanged for it. However, regarding other categories of items forbidden from benefit where money exchanged from them is unlike them, it is logical that this fine was not levied.

2) TOSFOS DH V'HA'TNAN

תוספות ד"ה והתנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question from the Mishnah regarding Kidushin.)

תימה לפי מה שפירש בקונטרס לעיל בפרק ר' ישמעאל (דף נד:) דדוקא לקדש אשה התירו אבל לאיתהנויי מינייהו אסור מדרבנן אבל לאיניש אחרינא שרו אותן מעות וה"נ גבי שביעית המעות אינם אסורין לאחרים כדאמר לעיל פרק רבי ישמעאל (שם)

(a) Question: This is difficult. Rashi's explanation earlier (54b) is that they were specifically lenient regarding Kidushin done with this money, although he is generally forbidden to have benefit from it according to Rabbinic law. However, a different person can benefit from that money. Similarly, regarding Shemitah, the money is not forbidden to others as stated earlier (ibid.).

מאי קא פריך הא דקאמר אסור במתני' היינו דוקא לפועל שאסורין הן כמו למוכר דוקא

1. Question (cont.): What, then, is our Gemara's question? When our Mishnah says the wages are forbidden, it means that they are only forbidden to the worker, just as these monies are forbidden to the person selling these goods!

וי"ל דאסור דמתני' משמע לכ"ע

(b) Answer: When our Gemara says that the wages are forbidden, it implies they are forbidden to everyone (not just the person himself).

מיהו תימה מאי קפריך שאני התם דהיינו בדיעבד כדמוכח בנדרים פרק השותפין (דף מז:) אבל לכתחלה אסור ומתני' לכתחלה איירי

(c) Question: However, the Gemara's question is difficult. The law that the monies can be used in Kidushin is only b'Dieved, as is apparent in Nedarim (47b)! However, Lechatchilah it is forbidden, and our Mishnah is discussing the law Lechatchilah!

יש לומר דאסור דמתני' משמע ליה אפילו בדיעבד [וע"ע תוס' חולין ד: ד"ה מותר מיד]

(d) Answer: It is possible to say that when our Mishnah says it is forbidden, it means that it is even forbidden b'Dieved. [See also Tosfos in Chulin 4b, DH "Mutar mi'Yad."]

3) TOSFOS DH B'D'MEIHEN

תוספות ד"ה בדמיהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Orlah is not able to be used in a transaction, though it seemingly could be worth a Perutah.)

משמע הא בגוף הערלה אסור לקדש וטעמא משום דלית ביה שוה פרוטה

(a) Observation: This indicates that it would indeed be forbidden to be Mekadesh with the Orlah itself. The reason is because it is not worth a Perutah (the minimum amount required for Kidushin to be valid).

וקשה בגופה נמי איכא שוה פרוטה בשלא כדרך הנאתן או באפרן כדתנן (תמורה דף לד.) כל הנשרפין אפרן מותר

(b) Question: This is difficult. The Orlah is still worth a Perutah being that it can be benefited from in an abnormal fashion or turned into ash, as the Mishnah states in Temurah (34a) that one can have benefit from the ash of anything (i.e. things forbidden from benefit) that is burned.

וי"ל כיון שכל זמן שהוא בעין אסור למכרו מן התורה כמו כן אסור לקדש בו אשה דהוי כמו מכירה חשובה ויש בו הנאה כשמקדש את האשה

(c) Answer #1: Being that as long as it is extant the Torah forbids one to sell it, it is similarly forbidden to be Mekadesh a woman with it, as this is like an important sale from which one benefits when he is Mekadesh the woman.

דגמרינן (קידושין דף ב.) קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון וזה לא דמי לקיחה דשדה עפרון שראוי לקנות בו חפץ או לשאר הנאות

(d) Answer #2: [Additionally, (added by some Acharonim in Tosfos)] in Kidushin (2a) we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Kichah-Kichah" from the field of Efron (which teaches us to compare a purchase of a field to Kidushin of a woman). This money is not similar to the taking (i.e. money used to purchase) of the field of Efron, which was fit to buy a different object or be used for other benefits. (This explanation is quoted by the Avodah Berurah. See Avodah Berurah for another explanation of Tosfos in which there is only one answer in this Tosfos.)

4) TOSFOS DH LEKOT

תוספות ד"ה לקוט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the worker is not essentially selling Shemitah fruit in exchange for his Dinar.)

פירוש דהוי כמו שכרו ללקוט מציאות שאין אלו דמי פירות שביעית

(a) Explanation: This is as if he hired him to gather lost objects, as this is not money from fruit of Shemitah.

וא"ת הניחא למ"ד (ב"מ דף ח.) המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו אלא למ"ד דלא קנה חבירו א"כ זה המלקט קנאם וכשנותנם לבעל הבית בדינר זה נמצא מוכר לו פירות שביעית

(b) Question: This is understandable according to the opinion in Bava Metzia (8a) that someone who picks up a lost friend for his friend has acquired it for his friend. However, according to the opinion that he has not acquired it for his friend, the one who gathers them acquires them. When he gives the objects to the owner because he is receiving this Dinar, he is essentially selling him fruit of Shemitah!

י"ל דלא חשיב מוכר דיד פועל כיד בעה"ב דמי

(c) Answer #1: This is not considered selling, as the hand of the worker is like the hand of his employer.

ועי"ל דשאני התם דאמר לא קנה חבירו עד שתבא מציאה לידו ואם ירצה המגביה יכול לזכות בה קודם שתבא לידי חבירו אבל הכא שאין המלקט מתכוין לזכות כלל לא בתחלה ולא בסוף וכשנותן לבעל הבית אז זכה בעל הבית

(d) Answer #2: Additionally, it is possible that the case of lost objects is different, as this opinion holds that his friend does not acquire the lost objects until he takes them in his hand. If the person who lifts it wants to, he may acquire it before his friend comes. However, in our case where the person gathering the Shemitah vegetables does not intend to acquire them at all, not in the beginning or end of his picking them up, the employer acquires them when he gives them to him (as opposed to the worker, who never acquired them).

וכי האי גוונא פי' ר"ת שילהי משילין (ביצה דף לט: בד"ה הכא) גבי מילאן ונותן לחבירו דאמר רב נחמן כרגלי מי שנתמלאו לו

(e) Proof: Similarly, Rabeinu Tam explains in Beitzah (39b, DH "Hacha") regarding a person who filled up a bucket with water and gave it to his friend that Rav Nachman holds that the bucket has the Techum of the person who it was filled up for.

ואע"ג דאית ליה לרב נחמן דלא קנה חבירו כיון שלא נתכוין לזכות הוא וכשנתנה לחבירו זכה חבירו

1. Proof (cont.): This is despite the fact that Rav Nachman holds that the second person did not acquire the water (when the first person picked it up) being that the first person did not intend to acquire it for him. However, when the first person gives it to the second person, the second person acquires it.

5) TOSFOS DH NIMTZA

תוספות ד"ה נמצא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the parameters of the prohibition against doing business with Shemitah fruit.)

אומר רבינו יצחק דהסחורה שהיא אסורה בפירות שביעית היינו לקנות הרבה ביחד להוליך ממקום הזול למקום היוקר

(a) Opinion: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that forbidden business with Shemitah produce is when someone buys a lot in order to take it from a place where the produce is cheap to a place where it is expensive.

וכמו שהיו עושין אוספי שביעית שפסולין לעדות בפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כו.) מטעם סחורה

1. Opinion (cont.): This is similar to those who gathered Shemitah produce that were declared unfit to testify in Sanhedrin (26a) due to their business dealings in produce of Shemitah.

וכן פורע חובו מפירות שביעית שזה משתכר בפירות שביעית ולאו לאכלה קרינא ביה אבל אם הוא לוקט למכור על יד לקנות בו דבר אכילה אין דבר זו סחורה

2. Opinion (cont.): Similarly, someone who pays back his debt with Shemitah produce is in this category as he is considered as profiting from Shemitah produce. This is not deemed "to eat it" (the use designated for Shemitah produce by the Torah). However, if he gathers it in order to sell a little at a time in order to buy food to eat, this is not considered business.

וכן שנינו פרק לולב הגזול (סוכה דף לט. ושם ד"ה וליתב) מבליע דמי אתרוג בלולב ובלא הבלעה נמי היה מותר אילמלא טעמא דאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ אלמא מותר למכור

i. Proof: We similarly learned in Sukah (39a, see Tosfos there DH "v'Leisev") that one can swallow the cost of the Esrog in the Lulav. Without this method, it would still be permitted were it not for the fact that we do not give money from fruit of Shemitah to an ignoramus. This implies that it is technically permitted to sell fruits of Shemitah (on a small scale).

ועוד תנן במסכת שביעית (פ"ז מ"ג) לא יהא לוקח ירקות שדה ומוכר בשוק אבל לוקט ובנו מוכר על ידו משמע דאפילו לכתחלה

ii. Proof: The Mishnah also says in Shevi'is (7:3) that one should not take vegetables from the field and sell them in the marketplace. However, he can gather them and his son can sell them for him. This implies that this can even be done Lechatchilah.

וא"ת תיקשי רישא לסיפא רישא אסרה לוקח למכור בשוק משמע הא לוקט מותר ואפילו בשוק והדר תני לוקט ובנו מוכר על ידו הא למכור בשוק אסור

(b) Question: We should ask that the first part of the Mishnah (ibid.) contradicts the second part. The first part forbids the buyer to sell in the marketplace. This indicates that one may gather it, and even sell it in the marketplace. The Mishnah then states that one may gather it and his son can sell it for him. This indicates that he cannot gather it and then sell it himself in the marketplace!

ונראה דיש במשנה ברישא טעות סופר וגרס בשניהם לוקט

(c) Answer #1: It appears that there is a mistake in the text of the beginning of the Mishnah. Instead of saying "Lokei'ach" -- "buyer," it should read "Loket" -- "gathers."

מיהו יש ליישב הגירסא ואשמעינן דדין לוקח ולוקט שוין דבשניהם אסור למכור בשוק ורישא תנא לוקח וה"ה לוקט וסיפא לוקט וה"ה לוקח

(d) Answer #2: However, one can answer the existing text by saying that the Mishnah is teaching that the law of one who buys and gathers is the same. Both of them cannot sell in the marketplace. When the first part of the Mishnah discusses a buyer, it means that the same law applies to one who gathers. Similarly, the second part of the Mishnah that discusses a gatherer means that the same applies regarding a buyer.

ויש ליתן טעם למה אסור יותר בשוק

(e) Implied Question: We need to give a reason why it is more forbidden to sell in the marketplace.

שכשמעמיד חנות בשוק דומה יותר שמשתכר בפירות שביעית

(f) Answer: When a person makes a store in the marketplace, it gives more of an appearance that he is benefiting from fruit of Shemitah.

ואע"פ שאמרנו שאסור לפרוע חובו מפירות שביעית משום דלאו לאכלה הוא מ"מ לקדש אשה מותר אע"ג דלאו לאכלה הוא

(g) Opinion: Even though we said that it is forbidden for a person to pay his debt from fruit of Shemitah because this is not deemed "to eat it," it is still permitted to be Mekadesh a woman with it even though it is not deemed "to eat it."

כדאמרינן פרק האיש מקדש (קידושין דף נב.) מעשה באחד שקידש חמש נשים בכלכלה של שביעית ואמרו חכמים אין האחיות מקודשות הא אחרות מקודשות וטעמא דמשום פריה ורביה אקילו ביה רבנן

1. Proof: This is as the Gemara states in Kidushin (52a) that a person was Mekadesh five women with a fruit basket of Shemitah fruit. The Chachamim said that the sisters are not Mekudeshes (some of them were sisters to each other). This indicates that the other ones were indeed Mekudeshes to him. The reason for this is because the Rabbanan were lenient when it came to the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.

ומיהו יש לדחות דהתם דיעבד אבל לכתחלה אסור

(h) Implied Question: However, one can push aside this proof by saying that the Gemara in Kidushin is saying they are Mekudeshes b'Dieved. However, Lechatchilah it would be forbidden to do so.

6) TOSFOS DH D'YAHIV

תוספות ד"ה דיהיב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the case is specifically regarding working with Shemitah fruit.)

וא"ת כיון דיהיב ליה בצד היתר מאי איריא דפועלים עושין בפירות שביעית הללו אפילו היו עושין מלאכה אחרת יהיו מותרין לפרען מפירות שביעית

(a) Question: Being that he gives the fruit in a way that is permitted, why is the case of the Beraisa that workers can work with this fruit? They can even do other work, and the employer can pay them in this permitted fashion with Shemitah fruit!

וי"ל דוקא כשעושין המלאכה בפירות שביעית עצמן אז אינו נראה כנותן שכר מה שפורען מפירות שביעית

(b) Answer: This is specifically when they do the work with the Shemitah fruit itself. It therefore does not look like they are getting wages when they are paid from the fruit itself.

ומשום הכי נקט עושה מלאכה בפירות שביעית והעלם לאכלם דוקא דדומה שהם של שניהם יחד לאכלה אבל עושה במלאכה אחרת יכול להיות שהוא אסור דדומה שפיר שכר מלאכה

1. Answer (cont.): This is why the Beraisa states that they can do work with Shemitah fruit, and the Mishnah said they can bring it (Ma'aser Sheini fruit, see Tosfos 62b DH "He'eleh") up to Yerushalayim to be eaten. It is as if the fruit belongs to both the employer and the worker, and they are both able to eat it. However, if the workers are working at a different job it is possibly forbidden, as it seems like they are being paid for their work.

62b----------------------------------------62b

7) TOSFOS DH HE'ELEH

תוספות ד"ה העלה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the prohibition against selling Ma'aser Sheini.)

דהוי כמוכר מעשר שני ואסור למכור מעשר שני והרבה משניות מוכיחות במסכת מעשר שני דאסור לעשות סחורה במעשר שני

(a) Explanation: This is because it is like selling Ma'aser Sheini, and it is forbidden to sell Ma'aser Sheini. Many Mishnayos in Meseches Ma'aser Sheini imply that it is forbidden to do business with Ma'aser Sheini.

ומסתבר דכל מידי דאין מתחלל עליו זהו סחורה האסורה בו ואינו מתחלל אלא על דבר אכילה ושתיה כדתנן (מע"ש פ"ב מ"א) מעשר שני ניתן לאכילה שתיה וסיכה

1. Explanation (cont.): It is logical that anything that (the holiness of) Ma'aser Sheini cannot be transferred to is considered doing business with Ma'aser Sheini. It can only be transferred on food or drink, as the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini (2:1) that Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten, drunk, or used as ointment.

וקשה דהא תנן בסוף פ"ק דמעשר שני אין לוקחין ממעות מעשר שני בהמה טמאה (ומעשר) כו' משמע הא מלבושין מותרין

(b) Question #1: This is difficult, as the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini that one cannot buy with Ma'aser Sheini money "an unkosher animal etc." implying that one could buy clothing with it.

ועוד תנן התם (פ"ה מי"ב) ולא נתתי ממנו למת ליקח לו ארון ותכריכין הא (לאו) [לחי] דומיא דמת מותר

(c) Question #2: Additionally, the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini (5:12), "And I did not give it to a dead person" means that he did not give it to him in order to buy a coffin and burial shrouds. This indicates that if it were to buy clothes for live people, it would be permitted.

ויש לומר דכל אותם משניות המתירות היינו מן התורה אבל רבנן אסרו כל עניני סחורה לפי שמצוה לעשות ממנו שלמים ואסרו גם לפרוע בו שכר הפועלים

(d) Answer: It is possible to answer that all of the Mishnayos that permit this are saying that it is permitted according to Torah law. However, the Rabbanan forbade all business with Ma'aser Sheini being that it is a Mitzvah to bring a Korban Shelamim from it. They also forbade paying wages to workers from Ma'aser Sheini.

והא דאיתא בירושלמי שאסור ג"כ לחי דומיא דמת ומפיק לה מקרא

(e) Implied Question: The Yerushalmi states that just as one cannot buy clothes for the dead from Ma'aser Sheini money, similarly they cannot buy clothes for a live person. It learns this from a Pasuk. (This is unlike the answer above that buying clothes for a live person is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law!)

אסמכתא בעלמא הוא

(f) Answer: This is not an actual derivation from the Pasuk, but rather a Rabbinic teaching leaning on a Pasuk.

ור' יהודה היה מקשה על זה דאמרינן בפרק בכל מערבין (עירובין דף כז:) מקרא דונתתה הכסף דדריש כללי ופרטי ולא מרבינן אלא פרי מפרי וגדולי קרקע לאכילה אבל דבר שאינו של אכילה לא אשכחן דאיתרבי

(g) Question: Rebbi Yehudah asked on this that the Gemara states in Eiruvin (27b) that the Pasuk, "And you will give the money etc." is derived using the rule of Klal u'Perat (and teaches us what one can buy with Ma'aser Sheini money). We only include fruits that come from fruits and things that grow from the ground. However, we do not find that things that are not eaten are included. (In other words, why would we think one can buy clothes with Ma'aser Sheini money?)

לכן נראה לפרש דכל מקום שמצינו היתר ליקח ממנו שום דבר היינו להיות מעות בקדושת מעשר ביד הלוקח

(h) Answer: It therefore appears that whenever we find that it is permitted to buy anything using Ma'aser Sheini money, it means that the money still has the holiness of Ma'aser Sheini in the hands of the seller (see Rashash that this is the correct text).

כמו גבי שביעית פ' לולב הגזול (סוכה דף מא.) מי שיש לו סלע של שביעית כו' דבעינן שתהא שביעית ביד הלוקח וכ"מ שמצינו איסור מקח במעשר היינו דרך חילול להיות המעות חולין ביד הלוקח

1. Answer (cont.): This is similar to Shemitah as stated in Sukah (41a) that if someone has a Sela of Shemitah etc. that the holiness of Shemitah is still in effect even after it is transferred. Whenever we find a prohibition of buying something with Ma'aser Sheini money, it means that one cannot treat the money exchanged as mundane after the transaction. (See Avodah Berurah that even this opinion agrees that even if one will not treat the money as mundane, certain sales may be forbidden, at least according to Rabbinic law.)

8) TOSFOS DH CHAMARIN

תוספות ד"ה חמרין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why wages of donkey drivers are singled out as being prohibited.)

פי' ורווחי טפי ודמו טפי לסחורה

(a) Explanation: It is more lucrative, and therefore more like doing business.

9) TOSFOS DH SACHRO

תוספות ד"ה שכרו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara entertains that earning wages by working with Stam Yayin is permitted.)

לכתחלה ודאי אסור להשתכר בסתם יינם כדאמרינן לעיל (דף נו:) דלא שרי לדרוך עם העובד כוכבים בגת אי לא ציירי לידיה

(a) Implied Question: It is certainly forbidden Lechatchilah to earn money by working with Stam Yayin, as the Gemara stated earlier (56b) that it is not permitted to stomp on grapes together with the Nochri unless his hands are tied (so he cannot pour for idolatry). (What, then, is the Gemara's question?)

אלא מיבעיא ליה אם השכר מותר בדיעבד או לא

(b) Answer: The Gemara's question is whether or not the wages are permitted b'Dieved.

10) TOSFOS DH D'AGAR

תוספות ד"ה דאגר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we can compare renting a boat to a worker.)

תימה מאי ראיה מביא מארבא לפועל שאני התם דנפיש אגריה ודמי לחמרין

(a) Question: What proof is there from the case of the boat to the case of a worker? Renting a boat earns more profit, and is therefore similar to donkey drivers (whose wages are forbidden because they are more lucrative than those of a regular worker).

י"ל כי לא היה השכר כי אם מעט לעבור נהר קטן והוי כפועל

(b) Answer: The wages in this case were only a small amount in order to pass over a small river, and therefore it is comparable to the case of the worker.

11) TOSFOS DH LIK'LINHU

תוספות ד"ה ליקלינהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask that they should burn it and spread its ashes in a cemetery.)

פי' בלא בי קברי ומשני אתי לזבלו

(a) Explanation: This means that he should be able to burn it without burying it. The Gemara answers that people will come to use it as fertilizer.

והא דלא הדר פריך וליקלינהו וליבדרינהו בי קברי דהתם לא שייך אתי לזבולי כדכתיב (מלכים ב כג) וישלך את עפרה על קבר בני העם

(b) Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask that he should be able to burn it and then scatter it by a grave, as this would not present a possibility of it being used for fertilizer (as a cemetery is already prohibited from benefit). This is as the Pasuk states, "And he threw her ashes on the grave of the people." (Why didn't the Gemara ask that this should be done?)

וי"ל דההיא בקבר בנין שאסור בהנאה אבל הכא בי קברי קרקע עולם שאינו נאסר

(c) Answer: This Pasuk is referring to a grave in a building that is prohibited from benefit. However, here the cemetery is regular ground which does not become prohibited from benefit.

וכן משמע בסנהדרין פרק נגמר הדין (דף מז:) קבריה דרב דהוו שקלי מיניה עפרא לאישתא בת יומא

(d) Proof: This is also implied in Sanhedrin (47b), as the Gemara states that they would take earth from the grave of Rav to heal a fever on its first day (and the Gemara there says that Shmuel said this practice was permitted, as the ground does not become forbidden).

12) TOSFOS DH ASI

תוספות ד"ה אתי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara is taking into account the opinion of the Rabbanan from 48b.)

וא"ת ומה בכך הא פסקינן לעיל (דף מט.) כר' יוסי דאמר זה וזה גורם מותר (בנביה) דהוי זבל דאיסור וקרקע דהיתר

(a) Question: Why should this make a difference? The Gemara ruled earlier (49a) like Rebbi Yosi who says that when two different things (one permitted and one forbidden) cause something the result is permitted. In this case, the fertilizer is forbidden but the land is permitted (and the result should therefore be permitted).

ויש לומר שלכתחלה יש לחוש לדברי רבנן שחולקין עליו דאמרי אף הוא נעשה זבל

(b) Answer: Lechatchilah one should worry about the opinion of the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi and say (48b) that this too will become fertilizer. (In other words, they hold that the result in the case above when two things are combined is forbidden.)

13) TOSFOS DH V'LIKBARINHU

תוספות ד"ה ולקברינהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why burying a prohibited item is not always an option.)

ומסיק לא מוכחא מילתא ואסור

(a) Observation: The Gemara concludes that this is not readily apparent, and is therefore forbidden.

וא"ת מאי שנא מכל הנקברין דחשיב פ"ב דתמורה (דף לג:) שור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה ושער נזיר וכל דקברי בעינייהו אף בלא בי קיברי

(b) Question: How is this different than all of the things that we say should be buried in Temurah (33b), such as an ox that is stoned, an Eglah Arufah, the hair of a Nazir, and everything that is buried as is even outside a cemetery?

וי"ל כיון שאין דרך לקבור בשר ושער מוכחא מילתא אבל חיטי אין קבורתן מוכחת דאיכא למימר איניש גנב וקבר ואייתי הכא וכן דרך עתה לקבור בכורות

(c) Answer: Being that it is abnormal to bury meat and hair, the identity of these items is apparent. However, the identity of buried wheat is not apparent, as it is possible one would say that someone stole the wheat, brought it here, and buried it. It is indeed normal today to bury wheat in pits (see Bach who changes the text of this part of Tosfos, resulting in this explanation).

ונראה שצריך לקברן מעט בעומק פן יבא לחטט אחריהם ולאחר שנעשו עפרא אין לחוש שמא יקחום לזבל בהם דאין דרך לחטט אחר הקברים משום זבל

1. Answer (cont.): (The Bach switches around the first and last sentence of this part of Tosfos as follows.) After the items that are buried turn into earth, there is no reason to suspect that someone will use it as fertilizer, as it is abnormal to dig up graves in order to obtain fertilizer. However, it appears that one should bury them somewhat deeply in the ground, lest someone come digging to find these things that are buried there. (There are many other ways to explain this Tosfos. See other explanations in the Maharsha, Maharam, and Seder Yaakov.)

14) TOSFOS DH YAZFI

תוספות ד"ה יזפי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what is wrong with poor people receiving Shemitah fruit after the Biur.)

אישתכח דאכלי עניים בשמינית לאחר הביעור חליפי פירות שביעית

(a) Implied Question: The poor people ended up eating in the eighth year after the Biur things that had been exchanged for Shemitah fruit. (What is wrong with that? The Tosefta in Shevi'is 8:3 states that poor people can eat Shemitah produce after the Biur, as stated below!)

צריך לפרש שהאיסור היה מה שהיו אוכלים אותם בחזקת שלהם דאילו בתורת שביעית אפילו הפירות עצמן יכולין עניים לאכול לכ"ע

(b) Answer #1: It must be that the prohibition is the fact that they were eating these fruit in a manner which indicated they belonged to them (not treating them with Kedushas Shevi'is). If it was just that they were Shemitah, even the fruit themselves could be eaten by the poor people according to everyone.

כדתניא בתוספתא (פ"ח דשביעית) הגיע שעת הביעור עניים אוכלים אחר הביעור ולא עשירים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי אומר אחד עניים אחד עשירים אוכלים אחר הביעור

1. Answer #1 (cont.): This is as the Tosfeta states in Shevi'is (8:3) that after the Biur, poor people can still eat although rich people cannot. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi states that both poor people and rich people can eat after the Biur.

אי נמי העניים היו עושים מהם מלוגמא או סחורה ולפיכך הקפידו עליהם אותם שבאו ואמרו לרבי יוחנן

(c) Answer #2: Alternatively, the poor people would make medicines or merchandise out of the fruit. This is why those who came were upset with them, and they told Rebbi Yochanan.

15) TOSFOS DH YA'OS

תוספות ד"ה יאות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the basis of the actions of Rebbi Yanai's house, and its practical applications.)

דכיון דבההיא שעתא לא הוו הנך בעין לא חליפין נינהו ולא חייל עלייהו קדושת שביעית ולפי זה אפילו בשביעית עצמה היו יכולין לפרוע אם כבר אכלו פירות שביעית

(a) Explanation: Being that at that time (when the poor people loaned Rebbi Yanai's house the Shemitah fruit and they were then eaten) these fruit (used to pay back the poor people) were not extant, they did not become holy with Kedushas Shevi'is (and the house of Rebbi Yanai did the right thing). Accordingly, even if they were doing this on Shemitah they could pay the poor people if the Shemitah fruit given by the poor people had already been eaten.

וההיא דאמרינן בלולב הגזול (סוכה דף לט.) דמבליע דמי אתרוג בלולב ה"ה בלא הבלעה אם היה עם הארץ רוצה להקיף עד שיכלה האתרוג ולא היה כאן דמי שביעית

(b) Observation: The Gemara in Sukah (39a) states that one can swallow the payment for a Shemitah Esrog in a Lulav (that he is selling as Arba Minim, meaning that while he is officially only charging for the Lulav, he is including the price of the Esrog). However, the "swallowing" is unnecessary if the ignoramus would be willing to pay him after the Esrog had been used up. This would mean that he is not accepting payment for Shemitah fruit.

ומכאן דקדק הרב רבי אלחנן הלכה למעשה שאם יש ביד ישראל יין נסך ועבודת כוכבים ודברים האסורים ומכרן לעובד כוכבים בהקפה ומכרם העובד כוכבים לאחר קודם שיתן לזה הישראל הדמים שהדמים מותרין בדיעבד ואע"פ שהאיסור עדיין ישנו בעולם

(c) Opinion #1: Rebbi Elchanan deduced from here a ruling that if a Jew has Yayin Nesech, idols, or anything prohibited and he sells them to a Nochri on credit, and the Nochri then sells it to another Nochri before he pays back the Jew, it is permitted b'Dieved to benefit from the money even though the forbidden item is still extant.

ועוד הוסיף רבינו יצחק שאפי' לא מכרם העובד כוכבים אלא כיון שמשכם אצלו קודם שיתן הדמים דקי"ל (לקמן עא.) משיכת עובד כוכבים קונה והוי כמו בא עליה ואח"כ נתן דאתננה מותר כיון שלא היה ברשותה בשעת הביאה וה"נ לא היתה עבודת כוכבים ברשותו בשעת פריעת המעות

(d) Opinion #2: Rabeinu Yitzchak added that even if the first Nochri did not yet sell the items this applies. Being that he pulled them toward him before paying, and we rule (71a) that pulling of a Nochri acquires the item for him, it is similar to a case where a person has relations with a prostitute and then pays her the sheep. Such a sheep is permitted to be brought as a sacrifice, being that she did not have it in her position during the relations. Similarly, the idol wasn't in his possession when he received the money (and he therefore may benefit from the money b'Dieved).

ומטעם רבית לא היה לאסור

(e) Implied Question: There is no problem of taking interest (in the case of Rebbi Yanai). (Why not?)

דאותן דבי רבי ינאי היה להם תבואה בביתם וסאה בסאה מותר ביש לו

(f) Answer: This is as the house of Rebbi Yanai had other produce in their house. It is permitted to lend a Sa'ah for another Sa'ah (even though the payback will be a Sa'ah that is more expensive because the demand is greater, as in the eighth year versus the seventh year) when the person borrowing has that same item in his house when borrowing.

16) TOSFOS DH ELA

תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question and notes that there is an argument in the correct text.)

פי' דכגון דאמר לה הילך טלה מעכשיו ובשעת ביאה תהא נגמרת מתנתה

(a) Explanation: The case is where he said to her that she should take this sheep from now, and during the relations the present should be finalized.

ופריך וליחול עלה איסור אתנן למפרע משעה דיהיב לה ומסיק כשקדמה והקריבתו קודם הביאה

1. Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, let the prohibition of Esnan work retroactively from the time that he gave it to her! The Gemara concludes that the case is where she offered it as a sacrifice before they had relations.

ופריך היכי דמי בשאמר לה הילך טלה מעכשיו איזה לשון אמר לה אי דאמר לה קני מעכשיו פשיטא דמותר דהא ליתיה בשעת ביאה

2. Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, what is the case? The case is where he told her take this sheep from now. What exactly did he say? If he said, "Acquire it from now" it is obviously permitted, as it was not alive during the relations.

אבל לשון גירסת הספרים מתנה הוא דיהיב לה קשה קצת דהא לא מתנה הוא שהרי אמר לה לכשתבעל תהא נגמרת כדפרישית ובתמורה (דף כט.) נמי אינו בספרים

(b) Implied Question: However, the text of the Sefarim that this is considered as if he gave her a gift is somewhat difficult, as this is not actually a present, as he also told her that when they have relations the present will be finished. The Gemara in Temurah (29a) also does not have this in its text. (How can we defend this text?)

ואי גרסינן ליה נפרש כן כמו מתנה הוא כיון שהקריבתו כבר

(c) Answer: If this is the text, we can explain that this is like a present, being that she already brought the animal as a sacrifice.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF