1)

TOSFOS DH U'MAR SAVAR DAVAR SHE'EIN MISKAVEN MUTAR (This Dibur belongs after DH 'Ein Portin')

úåñ' ã"ä åîø ñáø ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï îåúø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Halachah.)

åùøé àôé' ììáåù.

(a)

Clarification: And one is permitted even to wear it.

åäà ðîé ãúðï ãúðéà 'îåëøé ëñåú îåëøéï ëãøëï' åîå÷é ááîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëè: åùí) ëøáé ùîòåï ãùøé ãáø ùàéï îúëåéï ...

(b)

Sugya in Shabbos: And the same applies to the Mishnah (in the last Perek of Kil'ayim) 'Mochrei K'sus Mochrin ke'Darkan' and which the Gemara in (Shabbos, Daf 29b & 30a) establishes like Rebbi Shimon, who permits Davar she'Ein Miskaven ...

äúí ðîé ùøé àó ììáåù, åìà ùéùàí ãå÷à òì ëúéôéå.

1.

Clarification: ... there as well, they are permitted to wear the garment, and are not obligated to drape it over their shoulders.

2)

TOSFOS DH PORTIN LO MI'TEIVAS HA'MUCHSIN

úåñ' ã"ä àéï ôåøèéï ìà îúéáú äîåëñéï

(Summary: Tosfos connects this with the Chachamim later and reconciles it with the lenient ruling, before reconciling the fact that he may give him a Dinar and accept change with R. Shimon.)

ìøáðï ãàîøé 'ñúí âæéìä ìà äåé éàåù áòìéí' ,à"ù.

(a)

According to the Rabanan: This goes well with the Rabanan who hold (later, on Daf 114a) that 'S'tam Gezeilah is not Yi'ush Ba'alim'.

åî"î ÷úðé ã'ðåúï ãéðø åéçæéø ìå äùàø' ...

1.

Implied Question: Nevertheless the Tana says that he gives him a Dinar and he (the tax-collector) gives him change' ...

äåàéì åàéï éãåò ááøåø ùäí ùì âæì.

2.

Answer: ... since it is not known for sure that the money is stolen.

åø"ù ðîé ãàîø 'ñúí âæéìä äåé éàåù áòìéí' ,ãäùúà ä"ì éàåù åùéðåé øùåú, î"î àéï ôåøèéï ...

(b)

According to Rebbi Shimon: And even according to Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that S'tam Gezeilah havi Yi'ush Ba'alim', in which case it is Yi'ush and Shinuy R'shus, nevertheless, one may not exchange coins ...

îùåí ããáø îâåðä äåà, ãúéáä åëéñ îéåçãú ìäöðéò ùí âæéìåú ùìäí, åãøëï ëì ùòä ìäðéç ùí.

1.

Reason: ... because it is a despicable thing to do, seeing as the box and the purse are designated for discreetly placing in them what they have stolen, and they do this constantly.

3)

TOSFOS DH NODRIN LA'HARAGIM

úåñ' ã"ä ðåãøéï ìäøâéí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

áðãøéí (ãó ëç.) îôøù ãàîø áùôúéå ñúí 'éàñøå ëì ôéøåú ùáòåìí òìé àí àéðí ùì úøåîä! , 'åîçùá áìáå 'äéåí' ,ãàéï ðàñø àìà àåúå éåí áìáã.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara in Nedarim (Daf 28a) explains that with his lips he says 'Ye'asru Kol Peiros she'be'Olam alai, Im Einam shel T'rumah!', whilst in his mind he thinks 'today', so it is only forbidden on that day.

åàò"â ã'ãáøéí ùáìá àéðí ãáøéí' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And despite the fact that generally 'Words that are not verbalized are not effective' ...

îùåí àåðñà ùøå ìéä; äëé îôøù äúí ...

(c)

Answer: ... due to the Oneis, the Chachamim permitted it to him - as the Gemara explains there ...

åä"ä ùéëåì ìçùåá áìáå ùòä àçú àå øâò.

(d)

Clarification (cont.): ... and the same token, one is allowed to think in one's mind 'one hour' or even 'just one moment'.

åëï ðåäâéí ëùäùøéí îùáéòéí äéäåãéí äãøéí úçúéäí ùìà éöàå ìãåø áòéø àçøú- éëåìéï ìéùáò ñúí ùìà éöàå, åáìáí éçùáå 'äéåí' ...

(e)

Extension of Clarification: And this is what one customarily does when the princes force the Jews under their jurisdiction to swear that they will not go and live in another town - one is permitted to swear S'tam that one will not leave, and to think in one's mind 'today!'

åàôé' äåà îôøù áùôúéå ùìà éöà îîðå ëì éîé çééå, éëåì ìäòøéí åìçùåá áìáå ùåí úðàé...

1.

Extension of Clarification (cont.): And even if one says with one's lips that he will never leave for the rest of his life, he is permitted to 'cheat' and to think in his mind any condition that he fancies ...

åàí îáèì áùôúéå áìçù, ë"ù ãäåé áéèåì âîåø.

2.

Extension of Clarification (concl.): ... and if he actually negates what he swore with his lips - silently, that is most certainly a valid negation.

113b----------------------------------------113b

4)

TOSFOS DH SHE'LO YIMSHACHENU VEYEITZEI

úåñ' ã"ä ùìà éîùëðå åéöà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this statement with the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a.)

åäðé úðàé ãôø÷ äî÷áì (á"î ãó ÷éà: åùí) ãñáøé ã'âæì äëðòðé îåúø' ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Tana'im in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 111b [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]) who hold that 'Gezel Akum is permitted' ...

îå÷îé ìä ìäàé ÷øà ìãøùä àçøéúé.

1.

Answer: ... learn something else from this D'rashah.

5)

TOSFOS DH YACHOL YIGLOM ALAV

úåñ' ã"ä éëåì éâìåí òìéå

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

ôé' á÷åðèøñ 'éëåì éðéç àú äëðòðé ìëôåì åìäåñéó òì äìåàúå ìúáåò îä ùìà ðúï' .

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'We would have thought that one allows the Nochri to double the amount and to add on to the debt even what he did not lend him'.

åúéîä ìø"é, ãàîàé àöèøéê ÷øà ìäëé? ãàèå éôñéã åéðéç àú äëðòðé ìäèòåú àú òöîå?

(b)

Refutation: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach us this? Why should he lose and let the Cana'ani trick him?

åðøàä ìø"é ãä"ô ' -éëåì éâìåí òìéå - 'ùéèòä àú äëðòðé åéúï ìå ôçåú îîä ùðúï ìå, ú"ì "åçùá òí ÷åðäå" .

(c)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'Yachol Yiglom alav' to mean - that he is permitted to trick the Nochri and to pay him less than what he gave him; therefore the Torah writes "And he shall reckon with his purchaser".

åëï ôé' áòøåê áòøê 'âìí' -àò"â ãèòåú ëðòðé äéä îåúø, àñåø ìäèòåúå áî÷åí ùäëðòðé éåãò ùâåæì åòåùä òöîå ëìà éãò.

(d)

Support: And so the Aruch explains on the word 'Galam' - even though the error of a Nochri would have been permitted, it would nevertheless be forbidden to trick him there where the Nochri is aware that he (the Yisrael) is stealing from him, but makes out that he is not.

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHI KA'AMINA I DE'KUTI NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä äëé ÷àîéðà àé ãëåúé ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos proves that this is what he thought initially.)

ðøàä ìø"é ùëï äéä ãòúå îúçéìä ëîå ùäùéá ìäëåúé, åìà ëîå ùäéä äëåúé ñåáø ...

(a)

Clarification: The Ri explains that this was in fact, what Ravina meant to begin with - as he answered the Nochri, and not what the Nochri thought he meant ...

ãà"ë, äéä ñåáø ãâæì äëåúé îåúø ...

1.

Reason: ... because otherwise, he would have thought that Gezel Akum is permitted ...

ãàéï çéìå÷ áéï âðéáä ìâæéìä, ãáâðéáä àéëà çéìåì äùí ëùéãò ìáñåó...

2.

Proof: ... since there is no difference between Geneivah and Gezeilah, seeing as by Geneivah too, there is a Chilul Hash-m when he ultimately discovers what the Yisrael did.

åëì äðê ùîòúà ìà àééúé àìà äðäå ãàñøé âæì ëðòðé åìà îééúé úðàé ãäî÷áì (ùí) ãùøé.

3.

Proof (concl.): And the Gemara only cites the Sugyos which prohibit Gezel Akum, and not the Tana'im in 'ha'Mekabel (Ibid.) who permit it.

7)

TOSFOS DH HEICHI MEYA'ASHI

úåñ' ã"ä äéëé îééàùé

(Summary: Tosfos presents two interpretations of the Kashya.)

äéä ìäí ìúáåò áãéï àú ëì àãí äòåáøéí òìéäí.

(a)

Explanation #1: They should have taken to a Din Torah whoever passed by them.

àìà åãàé ìëê îúééàùéí, ìôé ùáãéï àéï îùìîéï ìäí ëìåí ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Only they were certainly Meya'esh due to the fact that, according to the Din they were not obligated to pay them anything ...

îùåí ã'ãéðà ãîìëåúà ãéðà' .

2.

Reason: ... since 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna'.

åá÷åðèøñ ôé' 'äéëé îééàùé' -ëìåîø îé äåé éàåù? åäà éàåù ëãé äåà åìà ÷ðé ...

(b)

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains 'How could they be Meya'esh' to mean - Is it really Yi'ush, seeing as Yi'ush alone is not Koneh?

ãàéï ëàï ùéðåé øùåú, ùäøé äï îåðçéí áøùåú äøáéí ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... bearing in mind that there was no Shinuy R'shus here, since the palm-trees were lying in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

åùéðåé îòùä ðîé ìéëà, ãäùúà ðîé )äåé( 'âåáé ããé÷ìé' îé÷øå , ëãàîø ìòéì áäâåæì ÷îà (ãó öå. åùí).

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Nor was there Shinuy Ma'aseh, seeing as now too, they were (still) called logs of a date-palm, as the Gemara stated earlier, in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Daf 96a & 96b).