1)

TOSFOS DH ILEIMA DE'MATYA LEIH BE'RU'ACH METZUYAH BE'DINEI ADAM NAMI LECHAYEV

úåñ' ã"ä àéìéîà ãîèéà ìéä áøåç îöåéä áãéðé àãí ðîé ìéçééá

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya in Sanhedrin with this Sugya and elaborates.)

åà"ú, ëéåï ùàéï çéìå÷ áéï î÷øá ãáø àöì äàù åáéï î÷øá äàù àöì äãáø, àîàé àîøéðï áôø÷ ëì äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó òæ. åùí) 'ëôúå áî÷åí ùñåó çîä àå öéðä ìáà, ôèåø?

(a)

Question #1: Since there is no difference whether one brings the object to the fire or the fire to the object, why does the Gemara say in Perek Kol ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin, Daf 77a & 77b) that if Reuven trusses up Shimon in a location where the sun or the cold is due to arrive, he is Patur?

ìéçééá, ìî"ã "àùå îùåí çöéå" '?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): Why is he not Chayav, according to the opinion that holds (above, Daf 22a) 'Isho mishum Chitzav'?

åëï 'ëôúå ìôðé àøé'?

(b)

Question #2: And the same Kashya applies to the case where he bound him in front of a lion.

åé"ì, ãåãàé àé ëôúå åäáéàå áî÷åí ùñåó çîä àå öéðä ìáà àå àøé çééá.

(c)

Answer: To be sure, if he were to bind him and carry him to the spot where the sun or the cold, or the lion, is destined to arrive, he would be Chayav.

àáì äúí îééøé ùëôúå áî÷åí ùäéä, åìà äæéæå îî÷åîå.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... only it is speaking where he bound him on the spot, without moving him from his place.

åìà äåé 'îöîöí' ...

(d)

Question: Nor does it fall under the category of 'Metzamtem' (holding a person down (in the water or in the fire) - for which one is Chayav) ...

äåàéì åäçîä åäöéðä åäàøé àéï òìéå áùòú ëôéúä.

(e)

Answer: ...because the sun, the cold and the lion are not actually on him at the time of binding.

åääéà ã'àù÷éì òìéä áã÷à ãîéà', àôéìå ëôúå åäáéàå ùí åàç"ë àù÷éì, ôèåø ...

(f)

Implied Question: And the case where Reuven breached a dam (Sanhedrin Ibid.), causing a stream of water to fall on to Shimon, he is Patur (See Maharam), even if he trussed him up and brought him there before breaching the dam ...

ããîé ìæåø÷ çõ åúøéñ áéãå, ãàôéìå ÷ãí äåà åðèìå, ôèåø.

1.

Answer: ... since it is comparable to where he fires an arrow at Shimon who is holding a shield, where he is Patur, even if he is the one to remove the shield.

åà"ú, ääéà ã'äùéê áå àú äðçù', ãôèåø ìî"ã îòöîå äåà îëéù, àîàé ôèåø, ìôé îä ùôéøùúé áùîòúéï, ãôé ôøä (ãó ëâ:) ùùí éãå ìúåê ôéå åäùéê?

(g)

Question: Why, according to the opinion that a snake bites of its own accord, is Reuven Patur in the case (in Sanhedrin, 76b) where he holds a snake against Shimon?

ìéçééá îùåí 'àùå'. ãåãàé äðçù éæé÷ äàãí?

1.

Question (cont.): Why is he not Chayav because of 'Isho', seeing as a snake will always bite a person?

åé"ì, ãùàðé äúí ùàéï äàøñ òãééï áòåìí.

(h)

Answer: It is different there, since the poison is not yet in the world.

2)

TOSFOS DH MAMONA BA'I LI'SHELUMI

úåñ' ã"ä îîåðà áòé ìùìåîé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why they are not Patur, seeing as Beis-Din did not know that they were false witnesses.)

åëé úéîà ôèåø îãéðé àãí îùåí ãìà éãòé' ùäí òãé ù÷ø?

(a)

Implied Question: And if you will ask that he is Patur mi'Dinei Adam because Beis-Din did not know that they were false witnesses?

î"î, ëéåï ùàí äééðå éåãòéï ùäí òãåú ù÷ø, îùìí, àéï ùééê ìîéúðé 'ôèåø îãéðé àãí.

(b)

Answer: Nevertheless, seeing as, had they known that they were, he would have had to pay, one cannot say 'Patur mi'Dinei Adam'.

3)

TOSFOS DH ELA LE'CHAVREIH

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ìçáøéä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case, and explains why the Tana says specifically 'ha'Socher'.)

ëâåï ùàéï ìçáøéä îä ìùìí àå ùäìê ìîãéðú äéí, àå ëâåï ùàéï àðå éåãòéí ùäí òãé ù÷ø.

(a)

Explanation: And it speaks where his friend has no money with which to pay, where he went overseas, or where Beis-Din do not know that they are false witnesses.

åãå÷à ùåëø, àáì àîø, ôèåø îãéðé ùîéí, ãñáåø ùìà éùîòå ìå.

(b)

Explanation (cont.): ... and specifically where he hired them, because, had he merely asked them to testify, he would be Patur (even) be'Dinei Shamayim, seeing as he (probably) thought that they would not listen to him.

ãàéï ðøàä ìåîø ãð÷è 'ùåëø' ìàùîåòéðï ãàôé' ùåëø ôèåø îãéðé àãí ...

1.

Refuted Explanation: Because it does not seem that the Tana mentions 'Socher' to teach us that even a hirer is Patur be'Dinei Adam ...

ùàéï æä ùåí çéãåù.

2.

Refutation #1: ... since that is not a Chidush.

åì÷îï ìà òáéã öøéëåúà àìà îãéðé ùîéí.

(c)

Proof: And the Gemara will shortly make a Tzerichusa only with regard to Dinei Shamayim.

åòåã, ãáôéø÷éï úðï (ãó ðè:) 'äùåìç àú äáòøä áéã çù"å, ôèåø îãéðé àãí åçééá áãéðé ùîéí. ùìç áéã ô÷ç, äô÷ç çééá.

(d)

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Gemara later in the Perek (Daf 59b) states that someone who sends his animal via a Chashu, is Patur be'Dinei Adam, but Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim; and if he sent it via a Pike'ach, the Pike'ach is Chayav ...

îùîò ãùåìç ôèåø àó îãéðé ùîéí.

1.

Refutation #2 (cont.): ... implying that the sender is Patur even be'Dinei Shamayim.

4)

TOSFOS DH P'SHITA IM LO YAGID ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ôùéèà àí ìà éâéã åëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Pasuk to bring it in line with the Gemara's question.)

åà"ú, ä"î ëùòáø òì ùáåòúå, ëãëúéá "åùîòä ÷åì àìä"?

(a)

Question: But that is only where he transgressed his Shevu'ah, as the Torah writes " ... they made him swear that he would testify"?

åé"ì, ãä"÷ ÷øà - ëùòåáø òì ùáåòúå áãáø ùàí ìà éâéã äéä ðåùà òåï, àæ éáéà ÷øáï ùáåòä; àáì áìà ùáåòä ðîé àéëà ðùéàåú òåï ...

(b)

Answer: What the Pasuk means is that if he contravenes his Shevu'ah in a way that, if he will not tell, he will bear a sin, then he is obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah, though he will 'bear a sin' even without a Shevu'ah.

ëãîåëç áîúðé' á'àçã ãéðé îîåðåú' (ñðäãøéï ãó ìæ:).

1.

Source: ... as is evident in the Mishnah in 'Echad Dinei Mamonos' (in Sanhedrin, Daf 37;).

åãå÷à áá"ã, ãëùàåîøéí 'àéï àðå éåãòéí ìäòéã', ùåá àéðí éëåìéï ìäòéã, ã'ëéåï ùäâéã ùåá àéðå çåæø åîâéã'.

(c)

Clarification: And it is specifically in Beis-Din when the witnesses deny knowledge of the testimony, when they are then unable to testify, due to the principle 'Keivan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid' ...

åäééðå "àí ìà éâéã" ã÷øà.

1.

Clarification (cont): ... that is the "Im Lo Yagid" to which the Pasuk refers.

àáì çåõ ìá"ã àéï ìçåù, ùéëåì ìçæåø åìäòéã.

2.

Clarification (concl.): ... but outside Beis-Din there is nothing to worry about, since he is able to retract and testify.

5)

TOSFOS DH HA'OSEH MELACHAH BE'MEI CHATAS

úåñ' ã"ä äòåùä îìàëä áîé çèàú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and cites the soures.)

òã ùìà ðúï äàôø ...

(a)

Clarification: 'Until one has poured in the ashes' ...

ëãúðéà áîñ' ôøä (ô"ã î"ã) 'ôøä ðôñìú áîìàëä òã ùúòùä àôø. åäîìàëä ôåñìú áîéí òã ùéùéí äàôø ìúåëä'.

1.

Source (a): ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (Perek 4, Mishnah 4) 'The Parah becomes Pasul if one works with it until it becomes ashes, and work renders the water Pasul until one pours the ashes into it'.

åáñôøé éìéó î÷øà - 'éëåì àó ÷ãùï, ú"ì "ìîùîøú ìîé ðãä", åìà ùëáø îé ðãä.

(b)

Source (b): And the Sifri learns it from a Pasuk - 'We might have thought even after they have been mixed ... therefore the Torah writes "To be guarded for the 'Mei Nidah' - but not once it has become 'Mei Nidah'.

6)

TOSFOS DH PATUR MI'DINEI ADAM

úåñ' ã"ä ôèåø îãéðé àãí

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Pircha from here on to the Gemara in 'ha'Nizakin'.)

áô' äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðâ.) ôøéê îéðéä ìî"ã 'äéæ÷ ùàéï ðéëø ùîéä äéæ÷'.

(a)

Question: In Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 53a) the Gemara asks from here on the opinion that holds 'Hezek she'Ein Nikar Sh'meih Hezek'.

7)

TOSFOS DH AVAL ITZRICH LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä àáì äðé àöèøéê ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehoshua omits the case of 'ha'Nosen Sam ha'Ma'ves lifni Behemas Chavero.)

åà"ú, 'äðåúï ñí äîåú' ðîé çéãåù äåà ìîéúðé, ëãàîøéðï ìòéì (ãó îæ:) ãàôéìå ñí äîåú ãìà òáéãà ãàëìä, çééá áãéðé ùîéí?

(a)

Question: It is also a Chidush to mention the case of 'ha'Nosein Sam ha'Maves ... ', as the Gemara says earlier (on Daf 47b), that one is Chayav bi'Yedei Shamayim even with regard to poison that is not generally eaten?

åùîà àéï ëì ëê çéãåù.

(b)

Answer: Only perhaps that is not such a Chidush.

8)

TOSFOS DH KISUYEI KISISEIH

úåñ' ã"ä ëñåéé ëñéúéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why his good intentions do not render him Patur.)

åà"ú, âìåé åéãåò ìî÷åí ìîä ðúëåéï, àí ìèåáä àí ìøòä?

(a)

Question: It is revealed before Hash-m what his intention was, whether it was for the good or for the bad?

åé"ì, ãàôé' áîúëåéï ìèåáä - ùìà éîäø ìùøåó åéåëì ìäöéì áòì äáéú áúåê ëê, î"î áãéðé ùîéí çééá ...

(b)

Answer: Even if he meant for the good - so that the fire should burn so quickly, enabling the owner to save his corn in the meantime, he is nevertheless Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim ...

ãàéáòé ìéä ìàæãäåøé åìàñå÷é àãòúéä ùìà éáà ìå äôñã áëê.

1.

Reason: ... because he should have taken care, and done it in such a way that the owner does not incur a loss on account of what he does.

9)

TOSFOS DH MAHU DE'SEIMA HAVYA LAH TECHILASO BI'PESHI'AH VE'SOFO BE'ONEIS KA'MASHMA LAN D'KULHU PESHI'AH HI

úåñ' ã"ä îäå ãúéîà äåéà ìä úçìúå áôùéòä åñåôå áàåðñ ÷î"ì ãëåìäå ôùéòä äéà

(Summary: Tosfos asks why the Gemara does not present a bigger Chidush.)

÷"÷, ãä"ì ìîéîø 'îäå ãúéîà ëåìä àåðñ äåà' ...

(a)

Question: Why did the Gemara not say 'Mahu de'Seima Kulah Oneis hu' ...

åëâåï ùðòì ëì ëê éôä ùàéðä éëåìä ìöàú àìà áçúéøä ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... such as where he locked the door so well that the animal could not have escaped other than by digging underneath it ...

÷îùîò ìï ãôåùò äåà àöì çúéøä ùäðéçä áçîä?

2.

Question (cont.): ... therefore it teaches us that he is considered Poshe'a as regards digging, since he left it in the sun?

56b----------------------------------------56b

10)

TOSFOS DH P'SHITA KEIAN DE'AFKEIH KAYMA LAH BI'RESHUSAIHU LE'CHOL MILI

úåñ' ã"ä ôùéèà ëéåï ãàô÷åä ÷ééîà ìä áøùåúééäå ìëì îéìé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and discusses why it is obvious and why it is not comparable to the Din of a Shomer.)

áäåöéàåä ìâåæìä àééøé îúðé', ëãîå÷é ìä áéøåùìîé.

(a)

Clarification: The Mishnah speaks where the robbers took the animal out in order to steal it, as the Yerushalmi explains.

åà"ú åîðìéä ã÷ééîà áøùåúééäå àôé' ìäúçééá òì îä ùäéà îæ÷ú, ãàäëé ÷àé, ã÷úðé 'åéöàúä åäæé÷ä'?

(b)

Question: From where do we know that the animal is in their R'shus, even to be liable for its damages, since that is what the Mishnah is talking about, as it say 'And it went out and damaged'? ...

ãìéëà ìîéîø ãëé äéëé ãîñøä ìùåîø çðí åäùåàì, ðëðñå úçú áòìéí, ä"ä âæìï ...

(c)

Refuted Answer #1: ... seeing as one cannot say that just as when 'One hands it to a Shomer Chinam or to a Sho'el (above, Daf 44b), they take the place of the owner', so too, does a Gazlan ...

ããìîà ùåîø äåà ãîçééá, àáì âæìï ìà ...

(d)

Refutation: ... because it is possible that a Shomer is Chayav, but a Gazlan is not ...

ãîöéðå ãáøéí ùäùåîø çééá åäâæìï ôèåø ...

(e)

Precedent: ... and we find that there are cases where a Shomer is Chayav, but a Gazlan is Patur

ùäøé áëçùä áäîä äëçùä ãäãøà åáôéøåú ùäø÷éáå î÷öú, îåëç áäâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ã' öç:) ãâæìï àåîø ìå 'äøé ùìê ìôðéê' ...

1.

Precedent (cont.): ... such as where he weakens the animal temporarily or fruit part of which rotted, which is evident in 'ha'Gozel Kama (later on Daf 98b) that a Gazlan can say to the owner 'Here is yours in front of you!' ...

îùåí ãìà çùéá ùéðåé åìà ÷ðéðäå, åôèåø àôéìå áôùéòä, ãìà ÷áì òìéå ùîéøä ...

2.

Reason: ... because, since it is not considered a Shinuy, he does not acquire them, and he is therefore Patur even if he was negligent, since he did not undertake to guard it ...

àáì ùåîø ëéåï ùîúçééá áëçùä ãìà äãø' åáäø÷éáå ëåìí àí ðòùå áôùéòä, ëîå ëï éúçééá áëçùä ãäãøà åáäø÷éáå î÷öúí ...

(f)

Precedent (cont.): A Shomer, on the other hand, since he is Chayav for a permanent weakness and for fruit, all of which rotted, there where he was negligent, he is also Chayav by a temporary weakness and by fruit, part of which rotted ...

ëéåï ã÷áì òìéå ùîéøä, ãìîä ìà éúçééá áæä ëîå áæä?

(g)

Reason: ... because, since he undertook to guard it, why should he not be Chayav in the latter case like he is in the former.

ùàéï äùåîø ÷åðä áùéðåé åàôéìå ùåàì ...

1.

Reason (cont.): ... bearing in mind that a Shomer does not acquire with Shinuy, even if he is a Sho'el

ã÷é"ì ã'àó ìùåàì ùîéï', ëãøá ëäðà åøá àñé (ìòéì ã' éà.).

2.

Basis: This is because we Pasken that 'We assess even for a Sho'el', like Rav Kahana and Rav Asi (above, on Daf 11a).

åàéï ìåîø ãîúçééáé ìôé ùàéðï éëåìéï ì÷ééí áä îöåú äùáä ãîùúìí îâåôå ...

(h)

Refuted Answer #2: Nor can one answer that he is Chayav because he is unable to perform the Mitzvah of returning the animal, since, because the obligation is to pay from its body ....

ãáùï åøâì àééøé îúðé', åéù ëàï äùáä îòìéà ëùîçæéøéí àåúä ìáòìéí.

(i)

Answer: ... bearing in mind that the Mishnah is speaking about Shein ve'Regel, in which case he can fulfill the obligation fully by paying the owner from his pocket.

åé"ì, ãñáøà äåà, ãâæìï ðëðñ úçú äáòìéí ...

(j)

Answer #1 (to Initial Question): It is logical to say that the Gazlan takes the place of the owner ...

ãëéåï ùäåöéà îøùåú áòìéí ùäéå çééáéï áùîéøúä, åàéï äáòìéí éëåìéí ìùåîøä ìôé ùðâæìä îäí, éù òì äâæìï ìùåîøä ...

1.

Reason: .. because, since he took it out of the domain of the owner who hitherto was obligated to guard it, and, because it was stolen from him, he is no longer able to do so, the onus of guarding it is now transferred to the Gazlan.

ãìòðéï ðæ÷éï à÷øå áòìéí ëì îé ùáéãå ìùåîøä.

2.

Basis: ... since in the realm of Nizakin, the one who is able to guard it is considered the owner.

åìà ãîé ì'úôñå ðéæ÷' ìø"ò (ìòéì ã' ìå:) ...

(k)

Implied Question: It is nor comparable to the case of 'where the Nizak seized it' according to Rebbi Akiva (above, Daf 36b [who holds that he is Patur])

ãàôé' ùåîø çðí àéðå òì çì÷ çáéøå, ãùåúó àéï îúëåéï ìäçæé÷ ø÷ áùìå, åàéðå áà ìäåöéà çì÷ çáéøå îøùåúå ëîå âæìï.

(l)

Answer: ... since he is not even a Shomer Chinam on his friend's portion, seeing as a partner only intends to take for himself what belongs to him, but not what belongs to his friend, in the way that a Gazlan does.

åòåã, ëéåï ãâæìï ÷îä ìéä áøùåúéä âí ìòðéï àåðñéï, éù ìçùá áòìéí éåúø îùåúó.

(m)

Answer #2: Moreover, since the object is in the R'shus of the Gazlan also as regards Onsin, he is to be considered more of an owner than a partner.

åäëé îùîò ìéùðà 'ã÷îä áøùåúééäå ìëì îéìé' - îä ùäåà áøùåúå ìëì îéìé éù ìå ìäåòéì ëàï.

(n)

Proof: And this is also implied by the Lashon 'de'Kama bi'Reshuseih le'Chol Mili' - meaning that 'What is in his R'shus regarding all matters helps (to render him Chayav) here as well.

11)

TOSFOS DH HA'MA'AMID BEHEIMAS CHAVERO AL KAMAS CHAVERO CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä äîòîéã áäîú çáéøå òì ÷îú çáéøå çééá

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the reason that he is Chayav, despite the fact that it is not his animal.)

åàò"ô ùàéï äáäîä ùìå, çééá îèòí ùï åøâì.

(a)

Clarification: Although the animal does not belong to him, he is nevertheless Chayav because of 'Shein ve'Regel', .

ãàò"â ãëúéá "áòéøä" ...

(b)

Implied Question: Because, even though the Torah writes "Be'iroh" (his animal) ...

ëãéãéä çùéáà, äåàéì åäåà òùä ...

(c)

Answer: ... it is considered his, since he did it ...

ëîå 'îãìé÷ ôùúðå ùì çáéøå áðøå ùì çáéøå'.

(d)

Precedent: ... like Reuven who sets fire to Shimon's flax using Shimon's lamp' (later, on Daf 62b).

àáì àéï ìôøù ãîçééá îèòí 'àù', ãáøé äæé÷à, åäåé ëàéìå ðåúï ìùí àù ...

(e)

Refuted Answer: One cannot however explain that he is Chayav because of 'Eish', because, seeing as the damage is certain, it is as if he would have placed a fire there ...

åàò"â ãôèøéðï ðåúï ñí äîåú ìôðé áäîú çáøå ...

(f)

Implied Question: And even though we exempt someone who places poison in front of his friend's animal ...

ùàðé äúí - àå îùåí ãìà òáéãà ãàëìä, àå îùåí ãä"ì ùìà úàëì, ëãàîø ìòéì (ãó îæ:).

(g)

Answer: ... that is different - either because it is not fit to eat, or because the animal ought not to have eaten it, as the Gemara explained earlier (Daf 47b).

ãà"ë îèòí æä, ä"ì ìäúçééá àôéìå áøä"ø ...

(h)

Answer to Initial Question: Because if that was the case (that he is Chayav on account of 'Eish'), then he ought to be Chayav even in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

åìà îùúîò áùåí ãåëúà ãìçééá áøùåú äøáéí ùï, àôéìå î÷øá áäîúå àöì äôéøåú åîòîéãä òìééäå.

1.

Reason: And nowhere do we find that one is Chayav on 'Shein' in the R'shus ha'Rabim, even there where he leads the animal to the fruit and places it right on top of it.

12)

TOSFOS DH HIKISHA AMRAT LAN

úåñ' ã"ä äëéùä àîøú ìï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why initially, the Gemara considered it more obvious.)

åúçéìä äéä ñåáø ã'îòîéã áäîä' äééðå ùîçæé÷ áéãå äàôñø åîåìéëä îîù òì ä÷îä åîòîéãä ùí.

(a)

Clarification: Initially, the Gemara thought that 'ha'Ma'amid Beheimah' means that he actually takes it by the halter, leads it to the standing corn and places it there ...

åìäëé äåä ôùéèà èôé.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... which explains why it was more obvious.

13)

TOSFOS DH VE'LISTIM NAMI SHE'HIKISHUHAH

úåñ' ã"ä åìéñèéí ðîé ùäëéùåä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and why the Gemara does not deem it necessary to explain why it is not so obvious, according to the Maskana.)

ìâåæìä îééøé, ëãîå÷é ìä áéøåùìîé.

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where the robbers did so in order to steal it, as the Yerushalmi establishes it.

åìà çùéá ìä îéìúà ãôùéèà, ëîå ùäéä çåùá äî÷ùä.

1.

Clarification (cont.): The Gemara does not consider it obvious, as the Makshan did.

åìà çééù ìôøù ìîä àéï ôùéèà ...

(b)

Implied Question: And it did not bother to explain why it is not so obvious ...

ìôé ù÷ì ìäáéï.

(c)

Answer: Since it is self-understood why.

14)

TOSFOS DH BE'HAHI HANA'AH DE'LO KABA'I LE'MEISAV RIFSA LE'ANYA

úåñ' ã"ä áääéà äðàä ãìà ÷áòé ìîéúá øéôúà ìòðéà

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rav Yosef's statement, and whether the Halachah is like him.)

îùåí ãòåñ÷ áîöåä, åãå÷à áùòä ãîúòñ÷ áä - ëâåï ùåèçä ìöåøëä àå ùåí òñ÷ ùöøéê ìä ìàáéãä, àáì áùáéì ùàáéãä ááéúå, ìà éôèø îìîéúá øéôúà ìòðéà ...

(a)

Clarification: Because he is busy with a Mitzvah, but only when he is actually performing the Mitzvah - spreading it out to preserve it or doing something with the article that it needs done to it. But the mere fact that the lost article is lying in his house will not exempt him from giving bread to a poor person ...

ëéåï ùéëåì ì÷ééí ùúéäí ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as he is to perform both ...

ëãîåëç áñåëä (ãó ëä. åùí), ãìà ðô÷à ìï î÷øà ã'òåñ÷ áîöåä ôèåø îï äîöåä' àìà ãå÷à äéëà ùàéðå éëåì ì÷ééí ùúéäí.

2.

Source: ... as is evident in Succah (Daf 25a & 25b), where the Gemara learns 'ha'Oseik ba'Mitzvah Patur min ha'Mitzvah' from a Pasuk, but only in a case where he is unable to perform both.

åñáøà äåà - ãàèå àãí ùéù ìå úôéìéï áøàùå åöéöéú ááâãå åîæåæä áôúçå éôèø îï äîöåú?

(b)

Proof #1: It is also logical to say this - because would a person who is wearing Tefilin on his head, who has Tzitzis on his garment and a Mezuzah on his door-post be Patur from Mitzvos?

åòåã, ãáôø÷ àéï áéï äîåãø (ðãøéí ìâ:) àîø ãôøåèä ãøá éåñó ìà ùëéç, åàé ôèøú ìéä ëì æîï ùäàáéãä ááéúå, ùëéç åùëéç äåà.

(c)

Proof #2: Moreover in Perek Ein bein hs'Mudar (Nedarim, Daf 33b) the Gemara states that 'The P'rutah of Rav Yosef' is not frequent, and if the finder would be exempt as long as the lost article is in his house, it would be very frequent indeed!

ôñ÷ ø"ç åä"â ãäìëä ëøá éåñó ...

(d)

Halachah #1: Rabeinu Chananel and Halachos Gedolos Pasken like Rav Yosef ...

îùåí ãàîøéðï áàéï áéï äîåãø (ùí) 'ãë"ò àéú ìäå ôøåèä ãøá éåñó' ...

1.

Source: ... because the Gemara says in 'Ein bein ha'Mudar' (Ibid,) that 'Everybody holds of the P'rutah of Rav Yosef'.

åàôéìå îàï ãùøé ìîåãø ìäçæéø àáéãä, ìà ùøé àìà îùåí ãôøåèä ãøá éåñó ìà ùëéç.

2.

Source (cont.): And even the one that permits the Mudar to return the lost article, that is only because 'the P'rutah of Rav Yosef is not frequent'.

åàåø"é ãàéðä øàéä ëìì - ãâí øáä îåãä ìøá éåñó ã'òåñ÷ áîöåä ôèåø îï äîöåä', àìà ãñ"ì ãìà ðòùä ùåîø ùëø áëê, åî"î äåà ðäðä, ìëê àñåø ìîåãø, àáì ìà äåä ùåîø ùëø.

(e)

Refutation: The Ri however refutes that proof - since Rabah also agrees in principle with Rav Yosef that 'ha'Oseik ba'Mitzvah Patur min ha'Mitzvah', only he holds that that does not make him a Shomer Sachar. And since he nevertheless benefits, it is Asur for the Mudar (to return the Madir's lost article).

åàéï ìã÷ã÷ ðîé áùîòúéï ãäìëä ëøá éåñó, ãîùðé øá éåñó 'ìòåìí áâéðúå äîùúîøú, å÷î"ì ãìà áòéðï ãòú áòìéí', ëãøáé àìòæø ...

(f)

Refuted Proof: Nor can one prove from the Sugya that the Halachah is like Rav Yosef from his answer (to Rabah's Kashya) 'Really it speaks (when he returns the animal to a guarded area, and it comes to teach us that we do not require the owner's knowledge, like the opinion of Rebbi Elazar' ...

åäëé îå÷é ìä ñåâéà ãàìå îöéàåú (á"î ã' ëè. åùí).

1.

Refuted Proof (cont.): And that is how the Sugya in Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 29a & 29b) establishes it.

ëé ðøàä ãøáä ÷áìä îøá éåñó - ã÷øà ëãø"à àúé.

(g)

Refutation: ... since it seems that Rabah accepted this answer from Rav Yosef - that the Pasuk goes like Rebbi Elazar.

åøáä ðîé ùäéä îã÷ã÷ îúçéìä 'ãëùåîø çðí ãîé', ìà îùîò ìéä ÷øà àìà àñîëúà áòìîà ...

1.

Refutation (cont.): In fact, when Rabah initially stated that 'He is like a Shomer Chinam', he only saw the Pasuk as an Asmachta ...

ãäà èòîà îùåí ã'îàé äðàä ÷à îèé ìéä', ëãìòéì

2.

Reason: .. seeing as he gave the reason as 'What Hana'ah does he get out of it', as we learned earlier.

åìà ôìéâé øáä åøá éåñó àìà áñáøà áòìîà.

(h)

Conclusion: ... and Rabah and Rav Yosef's dispute is based on a mere S'vara ...

åä"ô ãääéà ãàìå îöéàåú (ùí ã' ìà.) 'àé ãîðèøà, ìøáä ëãàéú ìéä îôùéòä, ìøá éåñó ëãàéú ìéä îâðéáä åàáéãä, ôùéèà? ãìäà ìà öøéê ÷øà.

(i)

Gemara in Eilu Metzi'os: And this is the explanation of the Gemara in Eilu Metzi'os (Ibid., Daf 31a) 'If it is guarded, and Rabah explains it his way, against Peshi'ah, and Rav Yosef his way, against Gezeilah va'Aveidah, that is obvious, and does not require a Pasuk.

åðøàä ìø"é ã'äìëä ëøáä áëì î÷åí ìâáé øá éåñó, áø îùãä òðéï åîçöä', ëãàéúà áîé ùîú (á"á ã' ÷îâ:).

(j)

Halachah #2 (Proof #1): The Ri maintains that 'The Halachah is like Rabah whenever he argues with Rav Yosef, with the exception of 'Sadeh', 'Inyan' and 'Mechtzah', as the Gemara states in 'Mi she'Meis' (Bava Basra, Daf 143).

åàéï ìôøù ãäééðå ãå÷à áááà áúøà, ëîå ùéù îôøùéí ...

(k)

Refuted Disproof #1: And one cannot confine this to Bava Basra exclusively, as some commentaries explain ...

îãàîø áîé ùàçæå (âéèéï ã' òã: åùí) 'åúñáøà, åäà ÷é"ì ëøáä', áäà àéï äìëä ëøùá"â.

1.

Refutation: ... since the Gemara in 'Mi she'Achzo' (Gitin, Daf 74b & 75a) states 'Think it over, Do we not (always) Pasken like Rabah; in this point the Halachah is not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel' (even though that Sugya is not in Bava Basra).

åàéï ìåîø ãùîà áääéà îéìúà ÷ééîà ìï ãäìëä ëøáä ...

(l)

Refuted Disproof #2: Nor can one answer that perhaps in that matter alone the Halachah is like Rabah ...

ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø 'åäà ÷é"ì áäà äìëúà ëøáä ëãàîø, åáäà àéï äìëä ëøùá"â'.

1.

Refutation #1: ... because then what the Gemara ought to have said is 'But do we not Pasken like Rabah in this matter like the Gemara says 'and in this matter the Halachah is not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel' ...

åòåã ãáôø÷ äîô÷éã (á"î îâ.) âáé 'îô÷éã îòåú àöì ùåìçðé, îåúøéí, éùúîù áäï (öøåøéí ìà éùúîù áäï). ìôéëê, àí àáãå, çééá áàçøéåúí'.

2.

Refutation #2: Moreover, in Perek ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 43a, in the case of 'Mafkid Ma'os eitzel Shulchani, Mutarin, Yishtamesh bahen. Lefichach im Avdu, Chayav be'Acharayusam'...

÷àîø øá ðçîï, ã÷é"ì ëååúéä áãéðé, 'ðàðñå ìà', ãîùåí ùäúéøå ìå çëîéí ìäùúîù áäï, àéðå ðòùä ø÷ ùåîø ùëø.

3.

Refutation #2 (cont.): ... Rav Nachman (like whom we Pasken when it concerns money-matters) says 'Ne'ensu, Lo' - because, the fact that the Chachamim permitted him to use the money, does not make him a Shomer Sachar.

à"ë, áàìå îöéàåú (ùí ãó ëè.) âáé 'îä éäà áãîéí? øáé èøôåï àåîø, éùúîù áäï; ìôéëê àí àáãå, çééá áàçøéåúï', ìà äåé àìà ù"ù, ëîå ùàîø ùí ìøáä.

4.

Refutation #2 (concl.): In that case, when the Mishnah in Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 29a), in reply to the question 'What will happen to the money?', citing Rebbi Tarfon, answers that 'he may use it; therefore, should it get lost, he is responsible for it' - he only becomes a Shomer Sachar, as the Gemara says there according to Rabah.

åàéï ìåîø ãäúí îåãä øá ðçîï ãçééá áàåðñéï îùåí äéúø úùîéù, îùåí ãáìàå äëé äéä ùåîø ùëø, ùäéä ùåîø àáéãä ...

(m)

Refuted Answer: And one cannot explain that Rav Nachman concedes there that he is Chayav be'Onsin due to the fact that he is allowed to use the money, because, seeing as he would anyway be a Shomer Sachar he is a Shomer Aveidah ...

ãàéï æä ñáøà, ãîùåí ùðé ñáøåú, ãôèåø îìîéúá øéôúà ìòðéà.

1.

Refutation #1: ... since it is not logical to say that he is Patur from giving bread to a poor man because there are two S'varos.

åòåã ãîåúø ìäùúîù, ìà éòùä áùáéì ëê ùåàì àìà ù"ù áòìîà.

(n)

Refutation #2: Moreover, the fact that he is allowed to use it will not render him a Sho'el, only a Shomer Sachar.

åòåã éù ìäáéà øàéä ãäìëúà ëøáä, îãîå÷é ñúîà ãâîøà îúðéúéï ãäàåîðéï (á"î ãó ô:) 'äìåäå òì äîùëåï, ùåîø ùëø' 'îçååøúà ãìà ëøáé àìéòæø ãàîø áîìåä çáéøå òì äîùëåï åàáã 'éùáò åéèåì îòåúéå'.

(o)

Halachah #2 (Proof #2): One can bring a further proof that the Halachah is like Rabah from the fact that the Gemara S'tama re'establishes the Mishnah in 'ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 80b) 'Hilveihu al ha'Mashkon, Shomer Sachar' not like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules with regard to someone who lends his friend on a Mashkon which got lost - 'He swears and takes his money'.

åìøá éåñó äå"î ìàå÷îä àôéìå ëøáé àìéòæø ...

(p)

Halachah #2 (Proof #2 [cont.]): Whereas according to Rav Yosef, the Gemara could have established it even according to Rebbi Eliezer ...

ãìîñ÷ðà îå÷é ëåìäå àìéáéä. åôìåâúééäå 'áîìåä öøéê ìîùëåï, àé îöåä ÷òáéã àé ìà' - ôé' ùöøéê ìîùëåï ìäùúîù áå, åôåçú ìå åäåìê îäìåàúå. ëê ôéøù äúí á÷åðèøñ.

1.

Halachah #2 (Proof #2 [cont.]): ... since in the Maskana, it establishes everyone like him, and the Machlokes is where, if the lender needs the Mashkon, he is nevertheless performing a Mitzvah or not - where he needs it for his own personal use and he deducts from the loan accordingly, as Rashi explains there.

åà"ë, äå"î ìàå÷îä îúðéúéï áàéï öøéê ìîùëåï, ãë"ò îöåä ÷òáéã, åìëï äåé ëùåîø ùëø

2.

Halachah #2 (Proof #2 [concl.): That being the case, the Gemara could just as well have established the Mishnah where he does not need the Mashkon, in which case, he is a Shomer Sachar according to everyone.