1)

TOSFOS DH AF AL PI SHE'HEIN YOD'IN SHE'HEIN SHEL RIBIS

úåñ' ã"ä àò"ô ùäï éåãòéï ùäí ùì øáéú ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why it is a proof that 'ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami'.)

åà"ú, åäéëé îã÷ã÷ îéðä ãëøùåú ìå÷ç ãîé, ãàôéìå ìàå ëøùåú ìå÷ç ãîé à"ù ãôèåøéï ...

(a)

Question: How can the Gemara prove from there that 'R'shus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach' ...

ëéåï ãîãòú ðúï ìå, ìéúðäå âáéä áúåøú âæéìä àìà áúåøú äìåàä, åìëê àéï çééáéï ìäçæéø, ã'îìåä òì ôä àéðå âåáä îï äéåøùéï ' ?

1.

Reason: ... seeing as he gave it to him of his own accord, he does not have it in the form of Gezeilah but in the form of a loan, which is why they are not Chayav to return it, seeing as 'One cannot claim a Milveh-al-Peh from the heirs' (See Hagahos ha'Rav Renchberg)?

åé"ì, ãàò"â ãîãòú ðúðí ìå, àéúðééäå âáéä áúåøú âæéìä ...

(b)

Answer: Despite the fact that he gave it to him of his own accord, it is nevertheless in his domain in the form of Gezeilah ...

ãäåé ëðúéðä áèòåú -ãìà ðúï ìùí îúðä àìà áúåøú øáéú...

1.

Reason: ... because it is considered a gift given in error - since he did not give it to him as a gift but as Ribis ...

åîé÷øé âæéìä áòéðéä ëéåï ùäîòåú áòéï, åäéå çééáéï ìäçæéø, àé ìàå ã'ëøùåú ìå÷ç ãîé, ' åäåé ùðåé øùåú.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... and since the money is available, it is called a Gezeilah that is available, in which case they would be obligated to return it if it was not considered 'ki'Reshus Loke'ach', turning it into a Shinuy R'shus.

2)

TOSFOS DH VE'LO PASH LACH GABEIH VE'LO MIDI PETURIN

úåñ' ã"ä åìà ôù ìê âáéä åìà îéãé ôèåøéï

(Summary: Tosfos presents two possible reasons to explain the ruling.)

îâå ùäéå éëåìéï ìåîø 'äçæøðå ìê' .

(a)

Explanation #1: Seeing as they could have claimed that they already returned it.

à"ð, ëâåï ùàéï òãé âæéìä àìà äåãàú äáðéí áìáã.

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it speaks where there are no witnesses that it was stolen, only on the admission of the children.

3)

TOSFOS DH KETANIM VE'HA AMAR KETANIM PETURIM

úåñ' ã"ä ÷èðéí åäà àîø ÷èðéí ôèåøé'

(Summary: Tosfos amends the text and explains why the Gemara asks specifically from Achilas Ketanim and not from Achilas Gedolim.)

ì"â...

(a)

Rejection of Text: Tosfos erases this text ...

ãäà ìàå ÷åùéà äéà -ãääéà ãìòéì ëñåîëåñ, åäê ëøáðï, ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

1.

Reason: ... seeing as that is not a problem - since the earlier Beraisa goes like Sumchus, whereas the current Beraisa goes according to the Rabanan, as Rashi explains.

àìà ä"â áëì äñôøéí 'åàëéìú ÷èï îéãé îùùà àéú áéä? ìà éäà àìà îæé÷, åúðï "çù"å ôâéòúï øòä"? ' ...

(b)

Amended Text: And the correct text, as appears in all the Sefarim, reads 'va'Achilas Katan Midi Mashasha Is beih? Lo Y'hei Ela Mazik, u'Tenan ' "Chashu" Pegi'asan Ra'ah?'

åä"ð ä"î ìîôøê îàëéìú âãåìéí, àîàé çééáéï ëé àëìå, ìøá çñãà ìàçø éàåù, åìøîé áø çîà ìôðé éàåù ...

(c)

Implied Question: And the Gemara could likewise have asked why Gedolim are Chayav if they ate it after Yi'ush, according to Rav Chisda, and before Yi'ush, according to Rami bar Chama ...

àò"â ãëé âæéìä ÷ééîú, çééáéï, ëé àëìå, ôèåøéí ëãô"ì.

1.

Implied Question (cont.): ... because even though they are Chayav if the Gezeilah is still available, they will be Patur if they ate it - as Tosfos explained above (on the previous Amud, DH 'Gazal')?

àìà ôøéê èôé ìäãéà à'÷èðéí.

(d)

Answer: Only the Gemara prefers to ask more directly on Ketanim.

åìéëà ìàå÷îé ëâåï ùäðéç ìäï àáéäï àçøéåú ðëñé(í, åìäëé à"ù äà ãâãåìéí çééáéï ìùìí, àáì ÷èðéí ÷ùä, ãî"î éù ìôèåø îèòí ãàéï î÷áìéï òãåú àìà áôðé áòì ãéï ...

(e)

Refuted Answer: One cannot however answer by establishing it where their father left them Acharayus Nechasam, which will explain why the Gedolim are Chayav to pay, and why there is a Kashya on Ketanim, who ought to be Patur, seeing as one is only permitted to accept testimony in the presence of the litigant (and a Katan is considered absent) ...

ãäà ìà ôèåøéí îäàé èòîà àìà ìñåîëåñ åìà ìøáðï.

(f)

Refutation: ... because they will only be Patur for that reason according to Sumchus, but not according to the Rabanan.

112b----------------------------------------112b

4)

TOSFOS DH AVAL HEICHA DE'IS LEIH CHAZAKAH DE'AVHASA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àáì äéëà ãàéú ìéä çæ÷ä ãàáäúà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

îùîò ãäééðå àôé' äéä øáé éøîéä áúåê äáéú...

(a)

Clarification: This implies that it speaks even if Rebbi Yirmiyah was inside the house ...

îãìà îôìéâ 'äúí áòì äùãä îåçæ÷ áùãä, äëà øáé éøîéä ìà äéä îåçæ÷' ...

1.

Proof: ... since it does not differentiate and say that there it speaks where the owner of the field was Muchzak in the field, whereas here Rebbi Yirmiyah was not M uchzak.

îùîò ãìà úìé áäëé îéãé àìà áîä ãàéú ìéä çæ÷ä îàáåú àôéìå äéä øáé éøîéä îåçæ÷ ááéú.

(b)

Conclusion: So it appears that that is not the criterion, only the fact that his brother-in-law had a Chazakah from his father.

5)

TOSFOS DH VE'SHALCHU LO VE'LO BA

úåñ' ã"ä åùìçå ìå åìà áà

(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether to read 've'Shalchu lo' or 'O shalchu lo'.)

àåø"é, ãîùîò ãáòé 'ùìçå ìå åìà áà' áäãé 'ùäéå òãéå çåìéí' àå 'ùäéå îá÷ùéï ìéìê ìîãéðú äéí' ...

(a)

Explanation #1: It implies, says the Ri, that they required 'Shalchu lo ve'Lo Ba' together with 'she'Hayu Eidav Cholin' or "she'Hayu Mevakshin Leilech li'Medinas haa'Yam' ...

îãìà ÷àîø 'àå ùìçå' -ëã÷àîø 'àå ùäéå òãéå çåìéí àå ùäéå' .

1.

Proof: ... since it did not say 'O Shalchu', as it does ... 'O she'Hayu Eidav Cholin " she'Hayu ... '.

åîéäå áñîåê îùîò ãáòé ìîéîø 'àå åùìçå' -.ã÷àîø 'ëâåï ãôúçå ìéä áãéðéä àå ùìçå ìéä åìà àúà' ...

(b)

Explanation #2: Shortly however, it implies that it means 'O ve'Shalchu' - when it says 'K'gon de'Paschu leih be'Dineih O Shalchu leih ve'Lo Asa' ...

îùîò ãîùåí äàé îéìúà ìçåãéä ã'ùìçå ìå åìà àúà' î÷áìéï òãéí ùìà áôðé áòì ãéï.

1.

Proof: ... which suggests that due to the reason that 'Shalchu lo ve'Lo Asa' alone they accepted the witnesses not in the presence of the litigant.

åéù ìãçåú ãùàðé äúí, ãôúçå ìéä áãéðéä îáéú ãéï âãåì .

(c)

Refutation: One can refute the proof however, on the grounds that it is different there, seeing as the Beis-Din ha'Gadol began dealing with his case.

[åéù ñôøéí ùëúåá áäï 'àå ùìçå àçøéå åìà áà'

(d)

Alternative Text: Some texts read 'O Shalchu Acharav ve'Lo Ba'.

åö"ò áñôøéí éùðéí.

1.

Conclusion: One therefore needs to study the old texts.

åáôé' ø"ç åáñôø éùï ðîöà ëúåá 'åùìçå ìå' .

2.

Conclusion (cont.): And in the explanation of the Rach and in an old text it is written 've'Shalchu lo'.

6)

TOSFOS DH MATZI TA'IN LE'BEIS-DIN HA'GADOL KA'AZILNA ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä îöé èòéï ìá"ã äâãåì ÷àæéìðà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether the claimant too, can force the defendant to go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, and draws a distinction between the Beis-Din ha'Gadol and the Beis ha'Va'ad.)

ôéøù áä"â 'åîöé ðúáò ìàùúîåèé áäëé.

(a)

Clarification: The B'hag explains that the defendant can get out of it with that argument.

åäéä ðøàä ìåîø ããå÷à ðúáò éëåì ìôèåø òöîå áëê, àáì ìà úåáò...

(b)

Explanation #1: It would seem that it is specifically the defendant who can absolve himself with this argument, but not the claimant ...

ãàì"ë, ëì àãí éàîø ìçáéøå 'àå úï ìé îðä, àå áà òîé ìá"ã äâãåì! .'

1.

Reason: Because otherwise, anybody can say to his friend 'Either give me a Manah or come with me to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol!'

àáì ðøàä ìø"ú ãë"ù úåáò...

(c)

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam says that Kal va'Chomer the claimant ...

ãäùúà ðúáò ùðøàä òåùä òøîä ëãé ìôèåø òöîå îîä ùæä úåáòå, îöé ìîéîø äëé, ë"ù úåáò, ùîúçéìä úåáò ëê, åàéï ðøàä ëîòøéí.

(d)

Reason #1: ... since now that the defendant, who it would seem, is playing a trick in order to absolve himself from the claim, can say this, how much more so the claimant, who is merely bearing out his claim, and who does not therefore appear to be playing tricks.

åòåã, ãàôéìå ìåä ã]òáã ìåä ìàéù îìåä' îöé ìîéîø 'ìá"ã äâãåì ÷àæìéðà' ,ë"ù îìåä!

(e)

Reason #2: Moreover, if even the debtor whom Chazal describe as 'an Eved to the creditor' can claim that he wants to go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, how much more so the claimant!

åàò"â ãàîø áôø÷ æä áåøø (ñðäãøéï ãó ìà: åùí) àîø àîéîø 'äìëúà ëåôéï àåúå åäåìê òîå ìî÷åí äåòã' -åîñé÷ ãäðé îéìé îìåä, àáì ìåä, òáã ìàéù îìåä, åìà î"ì 'ðìê ìî÷åí äåòã' ...

(f)

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 31b & 32a) citing the Halachah in the name of Ameimar, says 'We force him to accompany him to "the place of the Va'ad" ' - and it concludes that this is confined to the creditor, but that the borrower is 'the creditor's Eved ' and that he cannot therefore make the same demands of him ...

'áéú äåòã' ìàå äééðå á"ã äâãåì...

(g)

Answer: ... Beis ha'Va'ad is not equivalent to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol ...

ãáéú äåòã äééðå î÷åí á"ã ÷áåò, àáì éù á"ã äâãåì îîðå áçëîä.

1.

Answer (cont): ... 'Beis ha'Va'ad' is simply the fixed location where Beis-Din convene, and the Beis-Din ha'Gadol is superior to it in Chochmah.

åäéìëúà àôéìå ìåä îöé ìîéîø 'ìá"ã äâãåì ÷àæìéðà' ,àáì ìáéú äåòã ìà îöé àîø àìà ëåôéï àåúå åãï áòéøå.

(h)

Conclusion: The Halachah is that even the borrower can demand that they go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, but not to the Bis-ha'Va'ad. Consequently, the creditor can force him to accompany him to the town's Beis-Din.

7)

TOSFOS DH MEKAYMIN ES HA'SH'TAR SHE'LO BI'FENEI BEIS-DIN

úåñ' ã"ä î÷ééîéï àú äùèø ùìà áôðé áòì ãéï

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

ôé' á÷åðè' ' -àí òãéå îá÷ùéï ìéìê ìîãéðú äéí.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks where the witnesses want to go overseas ...

åàéï ðøàä ìø"é, ãà"ë, àîàé ð÷è '÷éåí äùèø' ,äà ÷áìú òãéí àîø ðîé ìòéì ãáëä"â î÷áìéï ùìà áôðé áòì ãéï?

(b)

Refutation: The Ri disagrees however, in that, if so, why does Rava mention 'Kiyun ha'Shetar', seeing as the same applies to Kabalas Eidim, as we learned earlier?

åðøàä ìø"é, ãáëì òðéï ÷àîø ãî÷ééîéï...

(c)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Rava is speaking under all circumstances ...

ã÷éåí ùèø ãøáðï...

1.

Reason: ... because Kiyum ha'Shetar is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

ã'òãéí äçúåîéí òì äùèø, ëîé ùðç÷øä òãåúï áá"ã ãîé' ,åàéï öøéê ÷éåí, åîãøáðï äåà ãöøéê ...

2.

Source: ... based on the fact that 'When witnesses sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has been verified in Beis-Din, in which case, (min ha'Torah) it no longer requires verification - only mi'de'Rabanan ...

äìëê î÷ééîéðï ùìà áôðé áòì ãéï.

3.

Conclusion: ... and this explains why it can be verified even not in the presence of the debtor.

åøáé éåçðï ãàîø 'àéï î÷ééîéï' ñáø ãìà ôìåâ øáðï áéï ÷éåí ùèøåú ì÷áìú òãåú,

(d)

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yochanan who says 'Ein Mekaymin', holds that the Rabanan did not draw a distinction between Kiyum Sh'taros and Kabalas Eidus.

åäà ã÷àîø 'àñáøä ìê èòîà ãø' éåçðï' ...

(e)

Implied Question: And when Rav Sheishes says that he will explain Rebbi Yochanan's reason' ...

ä"÷ -ãàôéìå á÷éåí ùèøåú àéú ìéä ìø' éåçðï 'éáà áòì äùåø åéòîåã òì ùåøå' .

(f)

Answer: What he means is that, even regarding Kiyum Sh'taros, Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'the owner of the ox must come and stand by his ox'.

åîéäå øá ðîé àéú ìéä áòìîà 'éáà áòì äùåø . ' ...

(g)

Conclusion: Rav too however, holds in general that 'the owner of the ox must come ... '.

8)

TOSFOS DH AD DE'AZIL SHALI'ACH BI'TELASA BE'SHABSA

úåñ' ã"ä òã ãàæéì ùìéç áúìúà áùáúà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the issue.)

ãîñúîà áùðé ãðäå.

(a)

Clarification: Since they probably judged him on Monday.

9)

TOSFOS DH DE'KABEI LEMEISAV ZUZA LI'PESICHA

úåñ' ã"ä ã÷áòé ìîéúá æåæà ìôúéçà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the issue.)

ëù÷åøòéï àåúä, îùìí äåà ùëø äñåôø.

(a)

Clarification: When they tear it up, he is obligated to pay the Sofer's fee.