Shalom!
My name is Robert and I am a grade 10 Talmud student at CHAT. I am doing a project on Daf 5, Amud A, beginning on line 37 until line 48. I have to explain the Gemara and all relevant commentaries (i.e. Rashi and Tosafot). I would like to know if you can give me any helpful resources on where to find english translations of both these commentaries (I have alreadt looked in the Artscroll Talmud). If possible, could you also quickly summarize the Tosafot beginning with "Kol Leinyan Kenas", as I am having a lot of difficulty understanding it.
Thank you very much for your help and time,
Robert E., Toronto, Canada
(a) We do not have translations of Rashi and Tosfos available, but Rav Nachman Kahane ("Mei Menuchos") has elucidation of Tosfos in English for some Masechtos.
(b) Regarding Tosfos DH Kol l'Inyan Kenas
1. The Gemara has just equated the Din of Kenas with that of Dinei Nefashos. In both cases, if the second witnesses testify that the first witnesses were with them on the day that they claim Reuven sinned, but that in reality he sinned later or even earlier, only he had not yet been taken to Beis Din, the first witnesses are put to death (even if Reuven is, too), because they testified on a man who was not yet pronounced guilty. However, if the first witnesses testified that Reuven was pronounced guilty and the second witnesses testify that the first witnesses were with them on that day or even later (but before they [the second witnesses] testified), then the first witnesses are not put to death.
2. The reason for the difference is because, whereas in the latter case, since Reuven was already pronounced guilty by Beis Din, the first witnesses testified against a man who was already guilty (and that does not fall under the category of Eidim Zomemin); in the former case, a man is not considered guilty before he has been judged (in which case they are regular Eidim Zomemin). This is the summary of the second half of Tosfos.
Kenas, the Gemara is saying, is similar to Nefashos. This is because, whereas before Reuven was taken to Beis Din, he could have confessed (so he is not considered guilty, and the first witnesses are Eidim Zomemin), once he has been judged in Beis Din, his confession is no longer acceptable. Consequently, he is considered Chayav and the first Eidim are therefore Patur. According to Rashi, the reasoning behind Nefashos is the same as that of K'nas.
3. The above distinction does not apply to Mamon however (as Tosfos explains in his opening statement) because money matters do not require such a stringent scrutiny. Consequently, as long as there are witnesses, Reuven is already considered guilty even though he has not yet appeared in Beis Din, since the witnesses are certain to appear in Beis Din and Beis Din are bound to pronounce him guilty.
Sorry for the delay. Feel free to use our resources on the Talmud in the future.