1)

TOSFOS DH TANI CHADA LOVEH V'GO'EL L'CHATZA'IN

úåñ' ã"ä úðé çãà ìåä åâåàì ìçöàéï

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

ôéøù øù"é ãà'î÷ãéù ùãä àçåæä' ÷àé.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it refers to "Someone who is Makdish a Sadeh Achuzah'.

åì"ð...

(b)

Refutation: This is not correct however

ãà"ë äåé ñúí îúðé' ãúðï á'ä÷ãù îåúø áëåìï' ëø"ù åìà ëøáðï.

1.

Reason: Because if so, the Mishnah which rules 'be'Hekdesh Mutar be'Chulan' goes like Rebbi Shimon and not like the Rabanan.

åàåø"é ã÷àé à'îåëø áéú ááúé òøé çåîä.

(c)

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore establishes it by "Someone who sells a house in a Batei Arei Chomah.

åëï îåëçú äñåâéà áô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ëà. åùí ë:).

1.

Proof: And this is also evident in the Sugya in the first Perek of Kidushin (on Daf 21a And 20b) ...

àáì î÷ãéù ùãä àçåæä àôé' øáðï îåãå ãìåä åâåàì ìçöàéï.

(d)

Conclusion: But in a case of Makdish Sadeh Achuzah even the Rabanan concede that 'Loveh' and 'Go'el la'Chatza'in'.

2)

TOSFOS DH TANYA B'TORAS KOHANIM

úåñ' ã"ä úðéà áú"ë

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the text and elaborates.)

âáé îåëø ùãä àçåæä "åçùá ùðé îîëøå" -'ùðéí àúä îçùá åàé àúä îçùá çãùéí... '

(a)

Text: In connection with someone who sells a Sadeh Achuzah "ve'Chishav Sh'nei Mimkaro" - 'You must reckon years, but not months' ...

åîðéï àí øöä ìòùåú çãùéí ùðä éòùä? ú"ì "åçùá" . '

1.

Text (cont.): 'And from where do we know that if he (the seller) to reckon the months as a year, he may? Therefore the Tofrah writes "ve'Chishav" '.

åà"ú, äéëé îöéðå ùùðéäí ìöåøê äîåëø ùéäà áå øéåç ìîåëø?

(b)

Question: From where do we know that, in both cases, it goes in favor of the seller? (See Avodah Berurah).

áùìîà ëùîçùá çãùéí îöéðå ëâåï ùáà ìâàìä áàîöò äùðä ãîçùáéðï ìéä çãùéí ùòáøå ùàëì äìå÷ç ìâøò ôãéåðå ëîå ùàðå îçùáéï äùðéí ùòáøå ùàëì äìå÷ç ...

1.

Question (cont.): Granted where he counts the months, we would find it where he came to redeem it in the middle of the year, where we count on his behalf the months that passed which the purchaser ate, to deduct from the redemption money, like we reckon the years that passed during which the purchaser ate ...

àáì àé àúä îçùá çãùéí äéëé îùëçú ìä?

2.

Question (concl.): But if one does not count the months, how does one find it (See Avodah Berurah)?

åéù ìåîø, ãîùëçú ìéä ëâåï àí îëø áðéñï áòùøä ìéèøéï åîçöä åéù òã äéåáì é' ùðéí åîçöä, åáà ìâåàìä áø"ä åéù òåã ìäáà òã äéåáì ä' ùðéí.

(c)

Answer: We can find it where he sold it in Nisan for ten and a half Litrin ten and a half years before the Yovel, and he comes to redeem it on Rosh Hashanah five years before the Yovel (See Avodah Berurah).

3)

TOSFOS DH MI'YOM L'YOM U'ME'ES L'ES ME'AD TOM SH'NAS MIMKARO NAFKA

úåñ' ã"ä îéåí ìéåí åîòú ìòú îòã úåí ùðú îîëøå ðô÷à

(Summary: Tosfos cites two opinions as to whether 'Me'es Le'es' extends to the other cases mentioned in Nidah.)

áîñ' ðãä (ãó îæ: åùí ã"ä ëåìï) ôéøù ä"ø ø' àìçðï ããå÷à ááúé òøé çåîä áòéðï îòú ìòú [ìùòåú] ...

(a)

Explanation #1: In Maseches Nidah (Daf 47b, Tosfos DH 'Kulan') ha'Rav R. Elchanan explains that it is specifically by Batei Arei Chomah (See Avodah Berurah) that we need Me'ed Le'es in hours ...

àáì àéðê ãäúí ãîöé ìîéîø ãàæìéðï áäï áúø ùðéí ùìäí åìà áúø ùðåú òåìí, áëåìäå ìà áòéðï îòú ìòú [ìùòåú] ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But by the other cases there, where one possibly goes after their birthdays and not after the years of the world (i.e. Tishri), Me'es Le'es is not necessary ...

ãááúé òøé çåîä ãå÷à äåà ãâìé ìéä ÷øà, àáì ãàéðê, ìà.

(b)

Reason: Since by Batei Arei Chomah exclusively, the Torah reveals this ruling, but not by the other cases.

åäúåñ' ëúáå ëàï äåà äãéï áëåìäå áòéðï îòú ìòú [ìùòåú] ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Tosfos however (See Avodah Berurah) writes here that in all the cases, Me'es Le'es is required ...

ãéìôéðï "ùðä" "[ùðä]" îáúé òøé çåîä ...

1.

Reason: Since we learn "Shanah" "Shanah" from Batei Arei Chomah ...

ëãàîø äù"ñ ì÷îï âáé îéìúà àçøéúé.

2.

Source: As the Gemara will say later in a different context.

4)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'TANYA HAREI ZU RIBIS GMURAH ELA SHE'HA'TORAH HITIRASO

úåñ' ã"ä åäúðéà äøé æå øáéú âîåøä àìà ùäúåøä äúéøúå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Yochanan's answer and reconciles the Beraisa with the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a.)

åîñé÷ øáé éåçðï 'äà ø' éäåãä äà øáðï' ...

(a)

Conclusion: Rebbi Yochanan concludes 'One goes like Rebbi Yehudah, the other, like the Rabanan ...

ôéøåù îúðé' ëø' éäåãä ãàîø 'öã àçã áøáéú îåúø, ' åáøééúà ãúðé 'øáéú âîåøä' àúéà ëøáðï.

1.

Clarification: Meaning that the Mishnah goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who permits Tzad Echad be'Ribis, the Beraisa, which considers it proper Ribis, according to the Rabanan.

åà"ú, îàé ùðà îîùëðúà áìà ðëééúà ãàéðå àìà àá÷ øáéú, ëãàéúà áàéæäå ðùê (á"î ãó ñá. åùí) ...

(b)

Introduction to Question: Why is this different than a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa (a Mashkon from which the creditor eats the fruit without deducting from the rental) which is only Avak Ribis (Ribis de'Rabanan), as the Gemara says in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bav Metzi'a, Daf 62a & 62b) ...

'à"ì øáéðà] ìøá àùé" [åäøé îùëðúà áìà ðëééúà, ãáãéðéäí îåöéàéï îìåä ìîìåä, åáãéððå àéï îçæéøéï îîìåä ììåä"? ... '

1.

Source: Ravina said to Rav Ashi "But there is Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, where according to their (i.e. the Nochrim's) laws they claim from the borrower and give to the creditor, yet according to our laws we do not return it from the creditor to the borrower?" ' ...

àìîà ìàå øáéú âîåøä äéà, åäëà àîø ãäåé øéáéú âîåøä?

(c)

Question: From which we see that it is not proper Ribis, whereas here the Gemara says that it is?

åìôé ôéøåù øù"é ãîçì÷ áéï ùãä ìáéú ðéçà ...

(d)

Answer: According to Rashi's there, who differentiates between a filed and a house, the question falls away ...

âáé äà ãúðï ôø÷ àéæäå ðùê (ùí ñã:) 'äîìåä àú çáéøå, ìà éãåø áçöøå çðí, åìà éùëåø îîðå áôçåú (îîðå) [îôðé] ùäåà øáéú' ...

(e)

Source: In connection with the Mishnah in Perek Eizehu Neshech (Ibid., 64b) 'Someone who lends his friend money, is not permitted to live in his Chatzer free of charge or to rent it from him below the market price because it is Ribis ...

åìôé îä ãôéøù øù"é ùí îàé ùðà îîùëðúà ãðëééúà ãùøé? ...

(f)

Question: In answer to the question how this differs from Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, which is permitted ...

åúéøõ ãéù ìçì÷ áéï ùãä ìáéú ...

(g)

Answer: Rashi answers there that one can draw a distinction between a field and a house ...

ãùîà äùãä ìà éòùä ôéøåú, àáì äáéú àé àôùø ùìà éäðä îîðå áãéøúå ...

1.

Reason: Since whilst a field may well not produce fruit, whereas on the other, it is impossible not to derive some benefit from a house in which one resides

åîùåí äëé ëé ]àéðå [îðëä ìå îï äùëéøåú äåé øáéú...

(h)

Answer (cont.): That is why if he does not deduct from the rental it is Ribis.

åìôé æä, ðéçà ðîé äëà -ãáéú ùäåà ãø áå áìà ñô÷ äåé øáéú âîåøä..

(i)

Conclusion: According to Rashi, the Kashya here too, is answered - in that the house where he resides is without any doubt, proper Ribis ...

àáì ùãä ãùîà ìà éòùä ôéøåú, ëé àëéì ìéä ðîé áìà ðëééúà, ìàå øáéú âîåøä äéà.

1.

Conclusion (cont.): Whereas the field, since it may well not bear fruit, even if he eats it without deducting, it is not proper Ribis.

åàéï ðøàä ìø"ú çéìå÷ æä ...

(j)

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, does agree with this distinction ...

ãááéú ðîé àéëà ñôé÷à ùîà éôåì àå éùøó...

1.

Reason: Bearing in mind that even by a house there is a doubt that it might collapse or get burned ...

àìà åãàé àéï çéìå÷ áéï ùãä ìáéú,

2.

Refutation (cont.): So there is definitely no difference between a field and a house.

åääéà ã'îìåä àú çáéøå ìà éùëåø îîðå áôçåú' ...

(k)

Question: And the case of 'Malveh es Chavero Lo Yiskor mimenu be'Pachos' ...

éù ìúøõ ãìà ãîé ìîùëðúà áðëééúà ãùøé...

(l)

Answer: One can explain is not comparable to Mashkanta be'Nachyasa (See Avodah Berurah), which is permitted ...

ãääéà îùëðúà îééøé ùäìåä ìå òì äùãä åàéï äìåä éëåì ìäùëéøå ìàçø îôðé ùäåà áéã äîìåä...

1.

Clarification: Because that is speaking where he lent him against a field which the borrower is not permitted to rent it out to anybody else, since it is in the domain of the lender ...

îùåí äëé àéðå øáéú, ãáìàå äëé äéä áèì.

2.

Reason: Which is not Ribis because the field was not in use anyway.

åäà ãúðï 'äîìåä àú çáéøå, ìà éùëåø îîðå áôçåú' ...

(m)

Implied Question: And the Mishnah which forbids a owner from renting a field from the borrower for less than the market price ...

îééøé ùìà äìåä ìå òì ùãä àå òì äáéú, åáéã äìåä ìäùëéøå ìàçø...

1.

Answer: Is speaking where he did not lend him against the field or the house, where the borrower retains the right to rent it out to somebody else ...

ðîöà ëùîåæéì âáéä, øáéú äåàé.

2.

Answer (cont.): In which case when he (the borrower) reduces the rental for the owner, it is Ribis.

åìôé' æä ãø"ú àéðå îçì÷ áéï ùãä ìáéú, äãøà ÷åùéà ìãåëúéä-

(n)

Repeat Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's current explanation, that does not distinguish between a field and a house, the initial Kashya returns ...

îàé ùðà îîùëðúà áìà ðëééúà- ãìà çùáéðï ìéä øáéú âîåøä?

1.

Repeat Question: Why is the current case different than a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa - which the Gemara does not consider proper Ribis?

åö"ì ã'øáéú âîåøä' îãøáðï ÷àîø...

(o)

Answer: We must therefore say that 'proper Ribis' (in the current case) means mi'de'Rabanan ...

åäàé ãàîø 'àìà ùäúåøä äúéøúå' ...

(p)

Question: And when the Tana says 'only the Torah permits it' ...

äëé ôéøåùå îãëúá ìï øçîðà ãéï áúé òøé çåîä, âìé ìï ãëé ä"â àéï æä øáéú ãàåøééúà.

(q)

Answer: What he means is that by inserting the Din of Batei Arei Chomah, the Torah indicates that such a case is not Ribis d'Oraysa.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'REBBI YEHUDAH SAVAR TZAD ECHAD B'RIBIS MUTAR

úåñ' ã"ä åø' éäåãä ñáø öã àçã áøáéú îåúø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehudah does not consider Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa Tzad Echad be'Ribis.)

åà"ú, ìø' éäåãä îùëðúà áìà ðëééúà ðîé úéùúøé, ãöã àçã áøéáéú äåà, åùîà ìà éôãðå òåã?

(a)

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah, why is Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa not also permitted, since it is Tzad Echad be'Ribis, seeing as the owner may not redeem it?

åé"ì, ãìà çùáéðï öã àçã áøáéú àìà ëâåï òùä ìå ùãäå îëø, ãàéëà öã îëø àí ìà éôãðå áúåê äæîï ä÷áåò ìå...

(b)

Answer: It is only considered Tzad Echad be'Ribis if he makes his field a sale, where one side will become a sale should he fail to redeem it within the specified time ...

àáì îùëðúà áìà ðëééúà ãìéëà áéä öã îëø, ãìòåìí äåà áéã äìåä ìôãåúå, åàí éôãðå ëéåï ùàéï îðëä ìå îï äôéøåú ùàëì, äåä ìéä øáéú ...

1.

Answer (cont.): But a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, where there is no side of Mecher, and which the borrower is able to redeem it without deducting the fruit that the lender ate, that is Ribis ...

îéãé ãäåä à'îìåä ñàä áñàä' ,åìà çùéá ìéä ø' éäåãä öã àçã áøáéú, àó òì âá ãùîà ìà éúéé÷ø...

(c)

Precedent: Similar to 'Someone who lends a Sa'ah for a Sa'ah', which Rebbi Yehudah does not consider Tzad Rchad be'Ribis, despite the fact that the price may not rise ...

î"î ëéåï ãàéï áå öã îëø àñåø, åìà çùéá ìéä ø"é öã àçã áøáéú.

1.

Precedent (concl.): Nevertheless, since there is no side of Mecher it is forbidden, and Rebbi Yehudah does not consider it Tzad Echad be'Ribis.

31b----------------------------------------31b

6)

TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR D'KULI ALMA TZAD ECHAD B'RIBIS ASUR

úåñ' ã"ä øáà àîø ãëåìé òìîà öã àçã áøáéú àñåø

(Summary: Tosfos cites three ways of now explaining the Machlokes between the Mishnah and the Beraisa.)

ôéøù"é åîúðé' åáøééúà áäà ôìéâé -ãúðà ãáøééúà ñáø ñåó ñåó äåàéì åìéãé äøáéú (ìâáé) [àúé] öã àçã áøáéú åëøáéú âîåøä äéà ,àìà ùäúåøä äúéøúå. [ìùåï] øù"é.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Mishnah and the Beraisa argue in that the Beraisa holds that, when all's said and done, since one side leads to Ribis, it is considered proper Ribis, only the Torah permits it (this is the wording of Rashi).

åòåã éù ìôøù ãáäëé ôìéâé îúðé' åáøééúà ëâåï ùðëðñ ááéú ìäçæéø ìå ãîé ùëéøåú ùðä, àí áà ìôãåúå áúåê é"á çãù...

(b)

Explanation #2: One can also explain that the Mishnah and Beraisa argue over a case where he entered the house with the intention of returning the money of the year's rental should he (the seller) come to redeem it during the year ...

ãúðà ãîúðé' ñáø øáéú òì îðú ìäçæéø ùøé, åúðà ãáøééúà ñáø ãàñåø.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since the Tana of the Mishnah permits taking Ribis with the intention of returning it, whilst the Tana of the Beraisa forbids it.

àé ðîé, îø àîø çãà åîø àîø çãà åìà ôìéâé- ãîúðé' îééøé ëùîçæéø ìå àí éôãðå, åáøééúà îééøé ëùàéï îçæéø.

(c)

Explanation #3: Alternatively, one says one thing, the other, says another and they don't argue - since the Mishnah is speaking where he returns the Ribis should the seller redem it, whereas the Beraisa speaks where he does not.

7)

TOSFOS DH D'I REBBI MEIR HA AMAR MATANAH EINAH K'MECHER

úåñ' ã"ä ãàé ø"î äà àîø îúðä àéðä ëîëø

(Summary: Tosfos presents two divergent ramifications of the statement.)

é"ì ãëéåï ãàéðä ëîëø, àéï áéãå ìâåàìä ìòåìí àôé' úåê é"á çãù...

(a)

Explanation #1: One can explain that since it is not like a sale, he can never redeem it, even during twelve months ...

åìôé æä ú÷ùé îä ùä÷ùéðå áô' äî÷ãéù (ìòéì ëç:) -ëéåï ãëúéá "àçåæú òåìí äéà ìäí" ,äéä ìðå ìåîø ùìà éúðå áúéäí áîúðä.

(b)

Question: In which case, the Kashya that Tosfos asked earlier in Perek ha'Makdish (Daf 28b [See Avodah Berurah]) - since the Torah writes "Achuzas Olam hi Lahem", we ought to have said that they cannot give their houses as a gift?' is relevant.

àáì ðåëì ìôøù äëà ã'îúðä àéðä ëîëø' -åéëåì äðåúï ìâàåì ìòåìí àôé' àçø é"á çãù ...

(c)

Explanation #2: One can also explain however, that 'Matanah is not like Mecher' and the donor can redeem whenever he likes, even after twelve months ...

åáäëé ðéçà, ãéëåìéí ëäðéí åìåéí ìéúï ìàçø áúéäí áîúðä.

(d)

Answer: In which case, the Kashya falls away, since the Kohanim and the Levi'im are permitted to give away their houses as a gift.

8)

TOSFOS DH HISKIN HILLEL

úåñ' ã"ä äú÷éï äìì

(Summary: Tosfos proves that Yovel applied in the days of Hillel.)

äëà îùîò ãáéîé äìì ùäéä ááéú ùðé -ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãùáú (ãó èå. åùí) 'äìì åùîòåï âîìéàì åùîòåï ðäâå ðùéàåúï ìôðé äáéú îàä ùðä- äéå ðåäâéï éåáì ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: It implies here that in the days of Hillel, who lived during the era of the second Beis Hamikdash - as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 15a & 15b) 'Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel and Shimon enacted their Nesi'us the last hundred years of the Beis Hamikdash - they kept the Yovel ...

ëéåï ãáúé òøé çåîä äéä ðåäâ...

1.

Reason: Seeing as Batei Arei Chomah applied ...

ëãàîø áôéø÷éï ãìòéì (ãó ëè.) ã'àéï áúé òøé çåîä àìà áæîï ùäéåáì ðåäâ' .

2.

Source: As the Gemara says in the previous Perek (Daf 29a) - 'Batei Arei Chomah only applies when the Yovel applies'.

(å÷ùä ìôéøù"é ãôø÷ äùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìå.) ãúðï äìì úé÷ï ôøåæáåì åôøéê áâî' òìä)

(Continued on following Daf).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF