BAVA KAMA 62 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH BAMEH DEVARIM AMURIM BEMADLIK BE'SOCH SHE'LO VE'HALCHAH VE'DALKAH BE'SOCH SHEL CHAVERO AVAL BE'MADLIK BE'SOCH SHEL CHAVERO MESHALEM KOL MAH SHE'BE'SOCHO

úåñ' ã"ä áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå åäìëä åãì÷ä áúåê ùì çáøå àáì áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå îùìí ëì îä ùáúåëå

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the case where the fire burned things that are normally found in a haystack, and explains why he does so.)

ëìåîø, áãáø ùãøëå ëâåï îåøéâéí åëìé á÷ø, àáì àøð÷é áâãéù ìà îçééáé øáðï.

(a)

Clarification: This refers to a threshing-sledge and the ox's accessories, but as for a purse in a haystack, the Rabanan do not declare him Chayav ...

àò"ô ùã÷ã÷ðå áëì äðé ãìòéì ùéäà îùìí ëì îä ùáúåëå ìøáðï ëîå ìø' éäåãä ...

(b)

Implied Question: Even though we saw in all the cases mentioned earlier that he pays for whatever happens to be inside it according to the Rabanan, just like he does according to Rebbi Yehudah ...

äðé îéìé, äéëà ã÷úðé 'åîåãéí' àå äéëà ã÷úðé 'ãáøé äëì' ...

(c)

Answer: ... that is only where the Tana says 'u'Modim' or where he says that it is unanimous ...

àáì äëà 'áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí' ÷úðé, åøáðï îéìúééäå îôøùé, åìàå à'îéìúà ãøáé éäåãä ÷ééîé.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, where he says 'Bameh Devarim Amurim', the Rabanan are simply explaining their own opinion, and not that of R. Yehudah

2)

TOSFOS DH SHE'EINO MESHALEM ELA D'MEI SE'ORIM

úåñ' ã"ä ùàéðå îùìí àìà ãîé ùòåøéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this case must be speaking where he lit the fire in his own domain.)

áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå àééøé ...

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where he lit the fire in his own domain ...

ãàé áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå ùòåøéï åäâãéù çèéï, ìîä ìà éùìí çèéï, ëéåï ãçæå ìäå?

(b)

Proof #1: ... because if he set fire to barley in his friend's domain and the haystack was made of wheat, why should he not pay for wheat, since that is what he saw?

åáñîåê îãîé ìäå ðîé ì'ðåúï ãéðø æäá ìàùä åôùòä áå ...

(c)

Proof #2: And the Gemara shortly will also compare the current case to someone who gives a golden Dinar to a woman, who is negligent with it' ...

îùîò ãäééðå îãìé÷ áúåê ùìå åäìëä áúåê ùì çáøå.

1.

Proof (cont.): ... implying that it is speaking about where he lit the fire in his own domain and it went and damaged in that of his friend.

3)

TOSFOS DH LE'REBBI YEHUDAH DE'MECHAYEV AL NIZKEI TAMUN BA'EISH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìøáé éäåãä ãîçééá òì ðæ÷é èîåï áàù ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara presents this ruling specifically according to Rebbi Yehudah.)

ìøáðï ðîé äåä îöé ìîéîø ãòùå ú÷ðä ááéøä áëì ãáø, åáâãéù áîåøéâéï ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have said according to the Rabanan that they enacted a Takanah - in a mansion, by everything and in a haystack, by a threshing-sledge ... ?

àìà øáåúà àùîåòé'- ãìøáé éäåãä àôé' àøð÷é áâãéù òùå ú÷ðú ðâæì.

(b)

Answer: Only it teaches us a Chidush - that according ro Rebbi Yehudah they enacted Takanas Nigzal even regarding a purse in a haystack.

4)

TOSFOS DH ASU TAKANAS NICZAL BE'MASUR O LO

úåñ' ã"ä òùå ú÷ðú ðâæì áîñåø àå ìà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies and discusses the Halachah following the outcome of 'Teiku'.)

ëúá øá àìôñ ëâåï ùéù òãéí ùîñøå åàéáã îîåðå, åàéï éåãòéï ëîä úé÷å.

(a)

Explanation #1: The Rif writes that it speaks where there are witnesses that the owner handed the defendant the money, and that the money then got lost, but they do not know how much money was involved ...

åëì úé÷å ãîîåðà ì÷åìà.

(b)

Halachah #1: ... and that every 'Teiku' concerning money-matters we rule leniently.

åáùí øá äàé âàåï ëúåá ùéùáò åéèåì îçöä, ùëì úé÷å ãîîåðà'çåì÷éï.'

(c)

Halachah #2: But in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on it is written that the claimant swears and takes half, since every 'Teiku' concerning money-matters we rule 'Cholkin'.

åàéï ðøàä ìø"é ìçééá ëìì îùåí 'úé÷å .'

1.

Refutation: The Ri however, maintains that in cases of 'Teiku', one is not Chayav anything.

åø"ú îôøù ãäê áòéà ëùäîåñø îëçéù àú äðîñø ...

(d)

Explanation #2: Whereas Rabeinu Tam establishes the She'eilah where the Moser denies the owner's claim ...

ãåîéà ãðâæì áùáåòåú, ãâæìï îëçéù ...

1.

Proof: ... similar to the thief, who, in Shevu'os (cited in the Sugya), denied the owner's claim.

àáì àí äîåñø òöîå àéðå éåãò ëîä, éùáò ðîñø ëîä äôñéã, åéèåì.

2.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas if the Moser himself does not know the amount involved, the owner swears how much he lost, and takes it from him.

åìø"é ðøàä ãäê áòéà àôéìå àéï äîåñø éåãò

(e)

Explanation #3: The Ri, however, maintains that the She'eilah is even if the Moser does not know ...

... ãåîéà ã'ú÷ðú ðâæì áàùå', ùàéï äîáòéø éåãò ëîä äôñéã äðéæ ..

1.

Proof: ... similar to 'the Takanas Nigzal by fire', where the person who lit the fire does not know the amount of the loss incurred by the Nizak ...

ãîáòé ìéä áîñåø àé òùå ú÷ðúà àå ìà.

2.

Explanation #3 (cont.): ... and the Gemara asks whether they enacted the Takanah by a Masur or not.

5)

TOSFOS DH MI MANCHI INSHI MARG'NISA BE'KASP'SA O LO

úåñ' ã"ä îé îðçé àéðùé îøâðéúà áëñôúà àå ìà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question and reconciles it with various other Sugyos.)

àôéìå éù òãéí ùäéä áå îøâðéúà, îáòéà ìéä ãùîà ìà àáòé ìéä ìàñå÷é à'ãòúéä ìäàé, åìà àîøéðï 'îàé äåä ìéä âáéä ãàæ÷éä ... '

(a)

Clarification: Even if there are witnesses that it contained a jewel, the Gemara asks whether perhaps he did not need to take into account such a situation, and we do not say 'What right did he have to cause him damage?' ...

ëéåï ãìà øâéìé àéðùé ìàðåçé ëìì.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as it is not common at all to place such things in money-chests.

åìà ãîé ìãéðø æäá ãìòéì ...

(b)

Implied Question: Neither is not comparable to the case of 'A golden Dinar' that the Gemara cited earlier ...

ãàáòé ìä ìàñå÷é àãòúà èôé... ãôòîéí ùàåîø ëï, ãéøà ùàí äéúä éåãòú ùäåà ùì æäá, ìà äéúä ùåîøúå.

1.

Answer: ... where there is more reason for the woman to take into account (the possibility that it was a golden Dinar) ... since sometimes a person says that (it is a silver one), because he is afraid that, had he known that it was a golden Dinar, he would not have undertaken to look after it.

åìà ãîé ðîé ì'àøð÷é áâãéù ... '

(c)

Implied Question: Nor is it comparable to the case of 'The purse in a haysack' ...

ãøâéìéï èôé ãîðçé îøâðéúà áëñôúà.

1.

Answer: ... which is a more common thing for people to do than a jewel in a money-chest.

åàéï ìôøù ãìòðéï ùáåòä îáòéà ìéä - àé òùå ú÷ðú ðâæì, åéäà ðàîï ìåîø ùäéä áå îøâðéúà ...

(d)

Refuted Explanation: And one cannot explain that the She'eilah concerns making a Shevu'ah - whether they enacted the Takanas Nigzal, and the owner will be believed to say that it contained a jewel ...

ãà"ë, îä äéä àåîø ìøá àùé 'ìàå äééðå îúðé'?' ...

(e)

Refutation: Because in that case, why did Ravina say to Rav Ashi 'Is this not what the Mishnah says?' ...

îä òðéï æä ìîùðúéðå.

1.

Refutation (cont.): ... What does this have to do with our Mishnah?

6)

TOSFOS DH MAH BEIN GAZLAN LE'CHAMSAN

úåñ' ã"ä îä áéï âæìï ìçîñï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the question is confined to de'Rabanans but not to the Lashon used in the Torah.)

áìéùðà ã÷øà àéï çéìå÷ áéðéäí ,åäëà ÷áòé îä áéï âæìï ãøáðï ìçîñï ãøáðï ...

(a)

Clarification: As far as the Lashon of the Torah is concerned, there is no difference between them, and the Gemara is asking here about the difference between a Gazlan de'Rabanan and a Chamsan de'Rabanan.

ãúðéà áô' æä áåøø (ñðäãøéï ãó ëä:) 'äåñéôå òìéäí äâæìðéí åäçîñðéí' ...

1.

Source: ... as we learned in a Beraisa in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 25b) 'They added Gazlanim and Chamsanim' ...

åîôøù 'âæìï ìà éäéá ãîé ,' ... åáîöéàú çøù ùåèä å÷èï, ëãîå÷é ìéä äúí, ãàéï ôñåì îï äúåøä àìà îùåí ãøëé ùìåí.

2.

Source (cont.): ... and the Gemara explains that 'A Gazlan does not pay for the article ... , and it speaks about the finding of a Cheresh, Shoteh and Katan, as the Gemara there establishes it, who are not Pasul min ha'Torah, only because of Darkei Shalom (Gitin, 57b).

7)

TOSFOS DH CHAMSAN YAHIV D'MEI

úåñ' ã"ä çîñï éäéá ãîé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the issue and reconciles it with a number of other Sugyos.)

åëùìà àîø 'øåöä àðé ,'ëãîôøù.

(a)

Clarification: Where the owner does not give his consent, as the Gemara explains ...

àáì îï äúåøä àéðå ôñåì àìà äéëà ãìà éäéá ãîé, àáì äéëà ãéäéá ãîé, ëùø, àò"â ãìà àîø 'øåöä àðé ...'

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... though min ha'Torah, he only becomes Pasul if he does not pay for the object, but where he does, he remains Kasher even if he did, and even if the owner did not say 'Rotzeh Ani'.

àò"ô ùòåáø òì ìàå ã"ìà úçîåã" ...

(b)

Implied Question: And despite the fact that he transgresses the La'av of "Lo Sachmod" ...

äà àîøé' áôø÷ ùðéí àåçæéï (á"î ãó ä: åùí ã"ä áìà) "ìà úçîåã" ìàéðùé áìà ãîé îùîò ìäå.

1.

Answer: ... the Gemara states in Perek Sh'nayim Ochzin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 5b and 6a, See Tosfos there DH 'be'Lo') that people understand "Lo Sachmod" to mean that one does not pay for the article.

åääéà ãñåó îëéìúéï (ãó ÷éè.) ãîééúé "îçîñ áðé éäåãä , " ã'àôéìå äéëà ãéäéá ãîé, äåä ëàìå ðåèì ðùîúå' ...

(c)

Implied Question: And as for the case cited at the end of the Masechta (Daf 119a), based on the Pasuk "me'Chamas B'nei Yehudah" - that even where he pays for the article, it is as if he takes his Soul'? ...

ìàå ãøùä âîåøä äéà, àìà àñîëúà áòìîà- ã'çîñï' ã÷øà äééðå âæìï ãìà éäéá ãîé.

1.

Answer: ... that is not a proper D'rashah, only an Asmachta - since the 'Chamsan' of the Torah is synonymous with a Gazlan, who does not pay for what he steals.

åà"ú, ëéåï ãçîñï ãéäéá ãîé ôñåì îãøáðï, à"ë ëé àîøé' áô' ùðéí àåçæéï (á"î ã' ä: åùí ã"ä áìà) 'àìà äà ãàîø øá äåðà îùáéòéí àåúå ùáåòä ùàéðä áøùåúå, ðéîà "îéâå ãçùéã ... ?"...

(d)

Question: Seeing as a Chamsan who pays money is Pasul mi'de'Rabanan, when the Gemara says in Perek Shenayim Ochzin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 5b and 6a) 'But when Rav Huna says that we make him swear that the article is not in his domain, why do we not say "Migu (since he is suspect on money issues, he is also suspect on swearing falsely)?" ...

åîùðé, 'îåøä åàåîø ãîé ÷éäéáðà î"î' ...

1.

Question (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers that 'He allows himself a Heter by saying that after all, he did pay for it' (and he is therefore not considered a suspect).

îä úéøõ áëê? àí äåà îòëá äô÷ãåï áéãå åøåöä ìéôèø áãîéí áòì ëøçå ùì áòìéí, äøé äåà çîñï åôñåì ìùáåòä îãøáðï...

2.

Question (cont.): ... what is the Gemara's answer? If he retains the security and wants to exempt himself with money against the wishes of the owner, he is nevertheless a Chamsan and is disqualified from taking an oath mi'de'Rabanan ...

åàëúé ðéîà 'îéâå ãçùéã ...'?

3.

Question (concl.): ... in which case we ought still to say "Migu de'Chashud a'Mamona ... ?'

åé"ì, ãî"î áâæìï ãàåøééúà àéï ìäåëéç ùìà éäà çùåã à'ùáåòúå?

(e)

Answer #1: In any event, one cannot prove from there that by a Gazlan d'Oraysa, he will not also be suspect on a Shevu'ah.

åòåã, ãçîñï ãøáðï ëùø äåà, åàéðå ôñåì òã ùéëøéæå òìéå...

(f)

Answer #2: Moreover, a Chamsan de'Rabanan is in fact, Kasher, and is not Pasul until they announce that he is ...

ëãàîø áô' æä áåøø (ñðäãøéï ã' ëå:).

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 26b).

åàôéìå àí äåà éãåò ùðòùä çîñï áòðéï æä, ùîà ìà øàå çëîéí ìôåñìå áëê ...

(g)

Answer #2 (cont.): ... because even if it is known that he is a Chamsan in this case, perhaps the Chachamim did not see fit to disqualify him on account of it ...

åâí ìà ìäëøéæ àìà ãå÷à ëé ù÷éì åçèéó áæøåò áòì ëøçééäå ãáòìéí.

1.

Answer #2 (concl.): And also not to announce, unless he grabbed the article by force, against the owner's will.

åäî÷ùä ã÷à ôøéê 'ðéîà îéâå ãçùéã ...', àò"â ãäà åãàé ÷éí ìï ãâæìï ãøáðï áòé äëøæä åàéðå ðôñì òã àçø äëøæä ëì òé÷ø, ìà äáéà ãáøé øá äåðà ...

(h)

Implied Question: Whereas the questioner (there) who asks why we don't say 'Migu de'Chashid a'Mamona ... ', in spite of the clear ruling that a Gazlan de'Rabanan requires a declaration and does not become Pasul at all until after it, did not cite Rav Huna ...

àìà îùåí ãî÷ùä 'åäà ÷òáø á"ìà úçîåã" '?

(i)

Answer #1: ... only on account of the question that the sinner transgresses the La'av of "Lo Sachmod".

à"ð, äëé î÷ùä -ëéåï ùôèø òöîå áîä ùèòï ðâðáå àå ðàáãå, åàéðå îùìí ãîéí àìà ìôé ùàéðå øåöä ìéùáò, åàí äéä ôåèøå îï äùáåòä ìà äéä îùìí ëìåí...

(j)

Alternative Interpretation of Question: What the Gemara asks is that - since he exempts himself by claming that the article was stolen or lost, and he only pays up in order to avoid taking an oath, and would not agree to pay if he would be exempt from the Shevu'ah ...

à"ë, ðéîà 'îéâå ?...'

1.

Alternative Interpretation of Question (cont.): In that case, why do we not say 'Migu ... ?'

åîùðé 'îåøä åàåîø - ' ... åâí àí äéä ôåèøå îï äùáåòä, ùîà ëîå ëï äéä îùìí ãîéí, ìôé ùîòëá äô÷ãåï áéãå...

2.

Answer: 'He allows himself a Heter and says ... '. So that, even he were to be exempt from the Shevu'ah, he may also have paid, seeing as he is holding on to the Pikadon ...

åìäëé ìà çùéã à'îîåðà.

3.

Answer #2 (concl.): ... and that explains is why he is not suspect on the money.

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

8)

TOSFOS DH PESULAH KE'SUCCAH U'CHE'MAVOY

úåñ' ã"ä ôñåìä ëñåëä åëîáåé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not Say 'Yim'at'.)

úéîä, ãäåä ìéä ìîéîø 'éîòè' ...

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not say 'Yim'at' ...

ëãàîøé' áøéù îñëú ñåëä (ãó á.) 'îáåé ãøáðï úðé ú÷ðúà'.

1.

Source: ... like it says in Maseches Succah (Daf 2a) - 'Mavoy de'Rabanan the Tana mentions the Takanah'.

åé"ì, îùåí ãáòé ìîéîø 'ëñåëä ,'ð÷è ìùåï 'ôñåìä.'

(b)

Answer #1: Because he wants to say 'Like a Succah', it uses the Lashon 'Pesulah'.

àé ðîé, ìôé ùäéä öøéê ìäàøéê áìùåï åìåîø 'éëáä åéîòè åéçæåø åéãìé÷

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, because it would then have had to use a more lengthy Lashon and say 'He should extinguish it, lower it and rekindle it' ...

ãìîòè ëîå ùäéà îåãì÷ú ìà ñâé...

1.

Reason: ... since to lower it in its lit state would not suffice

ëãàîøéðï áô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëá:) 'äãìé÷ä áôðéí åäåöéàä áçåõ, ìà òùä åìà ëìåí'

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 22b) 'If he lit it inside and then carried it outside, he has done nothing'.

åäëà ðîé ìà ùðà.

(d)

Conclusion: And the same will apply here.

9)

TOSFOS DH MERUBEH: MI KATANI EIN BEIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îøåáä: îé ÷úðé àéï áéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the inference with the Mishnah in Megilah.)

îùîò äëà äéëà ãúðé 'àéï áéï,' ìà ùééê ìîéîø 'úðà åùééø.'

(a)

Inference: It implies here that wherever it says 'Ein Bein', one cannot say 'Tana ve'Shayer'.

åä÷ùä äø"é îàåøìéð"ù îäà ãúðï áô"÷ ãîâéìä (ã' ç. åùí ã"ä àéï) 'àéï áéï ðãøéí ìðãáåú àìà ùäðãøéí çééá áàçøéåúï åðãáåú àéðå çééá áàçøéåúï.'

(b)

Question: The Ri from Orleans queries this from the Mishnah in the first Perek in Megilah (Daf 8a, See Tosfos DH 'Ein') 'Ein Bein Nedarim u'Nedavos Ela she'ha'Nedarim Chayav be'Acharayusan, u'Nedavos Eino Chayav be'Acharayusan'.

åàëúé äà àéëà ùäðãáä áàä îï äîòùø åðãø ùäåà ãáø ùáçåáä, àéï áàä àìà îï äçåìéï ...

1.

Question (cont.): How about the fact that a Nedavah can be purchased from Ma'aser whereas a Neder, which is an obligation, can only be purchased from Chulin ...

ëãúðï áäúåãä (îðçåú ã' ôà.)?

2.

Source: ... as we learned in 'ha'Todah' (Menachos, Daf 81a)?

åé"ì, ãäúí ìà áà ìîðåú ëì òðéï ùðãø åðãáä çìå÷éí æä îæä, àìà áà ìåîø ùàéï çéåá äáàä áæä éåúø îáæä àìà àçøéåú...

(c)

Answer #1: The Tana there is not coming to list all the differences between Neder and Nedavah, just that the sole Chiyuv of the one that is greater than the other is that of 'liability' ...

àáì ìòðéï 'áì úàçø' æä åæä ùåéï.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and that regarding 'bal Te'acher' (bringing the Korban after its time) they are equal.

åëï 'àéï áéï ùáú ìéåí äëôåøéí' ìà àééøé ìëì ãáøéí ùáéðéäí ëâåï àéñåø àëéìä ...

(d)

Precedent #1: And in the same vein, 'Ein Bein Shabbos le'Yom ha'Kipurim ... ' (Megilah, Daf 6b) is not coming to list all the differences between them - such as the prohibition of eating -

åëï 'àéï áéï é"è ìùáú àìà àåëì ðôù áìáã' -ìà àééøé áçåîø ùáùðéäí ëâåï ìàå åîéúä, àìà áãáø äàñåø àå îåúø ìòùåú áäï.

1.

Precedent #2: And similarly, 'Ein Bein Yom-Tov le'Shabbos Ela Ochel Nefesh Bil'vad' (Ibid.) is not concerned with the stringencies with one over the other - such as La'av and Misah - only with what one may or may not, do with them.

åòåã é"ì' ãäê îùðä ãîâéìä ùðåéä áîñëú ÷ðéí (ô"à î"à) âáé 'òåìú äòåó åòåìä áéï ðãø áéï ðãáä àéï áàä îï äîòùø' -ëéåï ãàéï áä àëéìú àãí...

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Mishnah in Megilah is also cited in Masec"hes Kinim (Perek 1, Mishnah 1) in connection with 'Olas ha'Of ve'Olah bein Neder bein Nedavah, Ein Ba'ah min ha'Ma'aser - Since it is not eaten ...

ëããøéù áñéôøé áô' "òùø úòùø" -ú"ì "åàëìú åùîçú," ùîçä ùéù áä àëéìä, éöàå òåìåú ùàéï òîäï àëéìä.

1.

Source: ... as the Sifri Darshens in the Parshah of "Aser Te'aser" (in Re'ei) - 'Talmud Lomar "ve'Achalta ve'Samachta" a Simchah that includes eating, to preclude Olos that are not eaten.'

åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï éåúø.

(f)

Conclusion: But this is not the place to elaborate.

10)

TOSFOS DH MERUBEH KATANI TANA VE'SHAYER

úåñ' ã"ä îøåáä ÷úðé úðà åùééø

(Summary: Tosfos discusses as to why in the first Lashon, the Gemara does not say 'Tana ve'Shayer'.)

ìùåï øàùåï ãîééúé ñééòúà ìà áòé ìîéîø ãùééø ...

(a)

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon that it cites as a proof (for Rebbi Chiya bar Aba) the Gemara does not need to say 'Shiyer' ...

ãñáø ääåà ìéùðà ãëéåï ã÷úðé 'îøåáä,' àéï ìåîø 'ùééø' ëîå á'àéï áéï . '

1.

Reason: ... because it maintains that since it says 'Merubeh', one cannot say 'Shiyer', just as we say by 'Ein Bein'.

åëï îùîò äìùåï ã÷àîø áìéùðà áúøà 'îé ÷úðé "àéï áéï"? "îøåáä" ÷úðé'! ...

(b)

Support: And this is implied in the wording of the second Lashon ''Does it say 'Ein Bein'? It says 'Merubeh!' ...

îùîò ùúçéìä äéä ñáåø ã'îøåáä' äåé ëîå 'àéï áéï. '

1.

Support (cont.): ... implying that the Gemara initially thought that 'Merubeh' is equivalent to 'Ein Bein'.

åà"ú, åîàé ùééø ãäàé ùééø?

(c)

Question: What else does the Tana omit that enables it to omit this?

åé"ì, ãùééø èòðú âðá áàáéãä ...

(d)

Answer #1: It omits Ta'anas Ganav by (an) Aveidah (that he finds) ...

ããøéù ì÷îï øáé éåçðï ã'îùìí ëôì', åàé èåòï èòðú âðá áô÷ãåï, ìà îùìí àøáòä åçîùä áèáç åîëø...

1.

Source: ... since Rebbi Yochanan Darshens later (Daf 63a) that he pays Kefel, and if he claims that it was stolen by a Pikadon, he does not pay Arba'ah va'Chamishah in the event that he Shechts or sells it ...

äëé ðîé èåòï èòðú âðá áàáéãä.'

2.

Conclusion: And the same will apply should he claim Ta'anas Ganav by Aveidah.

åòåã, ùîùééø ùåúó ùâðá îçáéøå åùåúôéï ùâðáå, ãìà îùìí àøáòä åçîùä, ëãàîø ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ã' òç:).

(e)

Answer #2: Furthermore, the Tana omits someone who steals from his partner and partners who steal, who do not pay Arba'ah va'Chamishah, as the Gemara will say later in the Perek.

åòåã éù îôøùéí ãàéï ìçåù äëà àí àéðå îùééø ëé àí ãáø àçã.

(f)

Explanation #2: Others explain that it wouldn't matter here, even if the Tana would not omit anything else ...

ëéåï ãìà ðçú ìîðééðà, àìà ãâìé ìï ùéù øéáåé áëôì îàøáòä åçîùä.

1.

Reason: ... since the Tana is not concerned with numbers, and is only coming to teach us that there are more cases of Kefel than there are of Arba'ah va'Chamishah.

11)

TOSFOS DH YATZ'U KARKA'OS ETC

úåñ' ã"ä éöàå ÷ø÷òåú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why we cannot ascribe the need for the Pasuk to the fact that they are precluded from a Shevu'ah, and consequently they are not subject to Kefel by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, either.)

åà"ú, ëéåï ãàîòéèé îùáåòä, ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ äæäá (á"î ã' ðæ:), úéôå÷ ìéä ãàéï áäí ëôì áèåòï èòðú âðá, ãìà îùìí àìà áùáåòä - ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï áùîòúéï?

(a)

Question: Since they (Karka'os) are precluded from a Shevu'ah, as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 57b) why not ascribe the Pasuk to the fact that they are not subject to Kefel by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, who only pays when there is a Shevu'ah, as the Gemara says later in the Sugya (Daf 63b)?

åìéëà ìîéîø ãàöèøéê ì÷åôõ åðùáò...

(b)

Refuted Answer: The answer cannot be that we need it for where he jumps in and swears (of his own accord) ...

ãáäâåæì ÷îà (ì÷îï ã' ÷å.) îåëç ãìà îùìí àà"ë á"ã îùáéòéï àåúå.

1.

Refutation: ... because in ha'Gozel Kama (later, on Daf 106a) it is evident that he does not pay unless it is Beis-Din who initiate the Shevu'ah.

åé"ì, ãàöèøéê ìäéëà ãðùáò ò"é âìâåì...

(c)

Answer: We need it for where he swears via a Gilgul Shevu'ah ...

ëãúðï (÷ãåùéï ã' ëå.) 'æå÷÷éï äðëñéí ùéù ìäí àçøéåú òí äðëñéí ... ìéùáò òìéäï'.

1.

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Kidushin (Daf 26a) 'Property with Achrayus (Karka) causes one to also swear on property without Achrayus (Metaltelin)'.

åîéäå ìôé îàé ãîñ÷éðï ì÷îï äàé 'ëì' øéáåé äåà, îãìà ëúéá äðé ôøèé âáé ëñó åëìéí' åñ"ì ãëôì åùáåòä äëì àçã, ðéçà...

(d)

Alternative Answer: However, according to the Gemara's Maskana later (on Daf 63b) 'This "Kol" is a 'Ribuy', since the Torah did not write the P'ratim by Kesef ve'Keilim', and he also holds that Kefel and Shevu'ah are one and the same, the matter is resolved (anyway) ...

ãìéëà àìà çã ÷øà ìúøåééäå.

1.

Alternative Answer (cont.): ... seeing as there is only one Pasuk for both of them.

åà"ú, åâðéáä á÷ø÷ò äéëé ùééëà?

(e)

Question: How can one steal Karka?

åé"ì, áîùéâ âáåì.

(f)

Answer #1: By moving the borders ...

à"ð, áîçåáø ì÷ø÷ò ...

(g)

Answer #2: ... or by stealing things that are attached to the ground ...

ëé ääéà ãé' âôðéí èòåðåú åèåòï ùðâðáå ìå ä', åðîöà ùäåà âðáí (ùáåòåú ã' îá:).

1.

Precedent: Such as the case in Shevu'os, Daf 42b) where 'Ten laden vines were stolen, the Nifkad claims that there were only five, and it later transpires that he stole them'.

12)

TOSFOS DH YATZ'U SH'TAROS

úåñ' ã"ä éöàå ùèøåú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara needs a Pasuk to preclude Sh'taros.)

åàí úàîø, ìîä ìé ÷øà ìîòè îëôì, åäà àôé' àáãå áéãéí ìà îùìí ÷øï, ìîàï ãìà ãàéï 'ãéðà ãâøîé?'

(a)

Question: Why is a Pasuk required to preclude Sh'taros from paying double, bearing in mind that, even if one destroys it with one's hands he is Patur from paying even the Keren - according to the opinion that does not declare 'Dina de'Garmi' Chayav? ...

åàôé' îàï ããàéï, ìà äåå àìà îãøáðï, ëãôøéùéú áñåó [äôøä] (ã' ðã. ã"ä çîåø)?

1.

Extension of Question: ... and even according to the one who does, it is only mi'de'Rabanan, as Tosfos explains at the end of 'ha'Parah' (Daf 54a, DH 'Chamor').

åé"ì, ëéåï ãàé àéúéä ìùèø áòéï, çééá ìäçæéø, (îùìí) ñì÷à ãòúê ãëùîçæéø [îùìí] (îçæéø) äëôì òîå.

(b)

Answer: Seeing as, if the Sh'tar was still in existence, he would be Chayav to return it, we would have thought that when he returns it, he pays the Kefel together with it (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).