1)

TOSFOS DH HISKIN HILLEL (Continued from previous Daf).

úåñ' ã"ä äú÷éï äìì

(Summary: Tosfos queries Rashi in Gitin, who holds that Shevi'is was only mi'de'Rabanan in the era of Bayis Sheini, and elaborates.)

å÷ùä ìôéøù"é ãôø÷ äùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìå.) ãúðï 'äìì úé÷ï ôøåæáåì' ;åôøéê áâî' òìä' îé àéëà îéãé ãàåøééúà îùîèà åäú÷éï äìì ãìà úùîè? ...

(a)

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 36a). The Gemara queries the Mishnah there 'Hillel instituted Pruzbul' - 'Is it possible that the Torah rules that it is Meshamet, and Hillel institutes that it isn't? ...

åîùðé 'áùáéòéú áæîï äæä ãøáðï' ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): To which it answers by establishing it by Shevi'is nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

åôøù"é åäìì ëøáé ñáéøà ìéä ãàîø ùáéòéú ìäùîèú îìåä áæîï äæä ãøáðï...

2.

Introduction to Question (cont.): To which it answers by establishing it by Shevi'is nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

åàò"â ãäìì ááéú ùðé äåä...

(b)

Implied Question: Even though Hillel lived in the era of Bayis Sheini ...

ñáéøà ìéä ãááéú ùðé äåàéì åìà äéä éåáì ðåäâ, ìà äéä ðåäâ ùîéèä îãàåøééúà...

1.

Answer: The Gemara holds that even then, since the Yovel did not apply, Sh'mitah did not apply min ha'Torah either ...

åãàîøéðï 'îðå éåáìåú ì÷ãù ùîéèéï' ,îãøáðï ÷àîø...

2.

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara states 'They counted Yovlos in order to count Sh'mitin', it means mi'de'Rabanan ...

åëàï îùîò ãááéú ùðé äéä éåáì ðåäâ îï äúåøä?

(c)

Question: But here it seems to take on that in Bayis Sheini, Yovel applied min ha'Torah?

åëï îùîò áëøéúåú ôø÷ àøáòä îçåñøé ëôøä áñåôå (ãó éà.)... "åéúðå éãéäí ìäåöéà (àú) ðùéäí åàùîéí ... " ...

(d)

Precedent: And this is also implied in Kerisus at the end of Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah (Daf 11a) - "Vayitnu Yedeihem Lehotzi Nesheihem ve'Ashamim" ...

'àîø øá çñãà îìîã ùëåìï ùôçä çøåôä áòìå' ,åùôçä çøåôä äééðå çöéä ùôçä åçöéä áú çåøéï äîàåøñú ìòáã òáøé...

1.

Precedent (cont.): 'This teaches us' said Rav Chisda, 'that they all had relations with a Shifchah Charufah' - who is half Shifchah, half bas-Chorin who is betrothed to an Eved Ivri ...

åàîøéðï áôø÷éï ãìòéì (ãó ëè.) ã'àéï òáã òáøé ðåäâ àìà áæîï ùäéåáì ðåäâ' ...

2.

Source: And we learned in the previous Perek (Daf 29a) that 'Eved Ivri only applies when the Yovel applies' ...

àìîà ðäâå éåáìåú ááéú ùðé.

(e)

Precedent (concl.): So we see that Yovel did apply in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash.

åö"ì ãò"ë ãàéï äëé ðîé ãðäâå éåáìåú ááéú ùðé ...

(f)

Answer: We must therefore say that Yovel did indeed apply in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash

åàò"â ãëì éùøàì ìà çæøå áéîé òæøà, ëãëúéá (ðçîéä æ) "ëì ä÷äì ëàçã àøáò øáåà àìôéí ùìù îàåú åùùéí" ...

(g)

Implied Question: Because even though not all of Yisrael returned in the days of Ezra, as the Pasuk writes (in Nechemyah 7) "The entire community altogether numbered forty thouwsand thousand, three hundred and sixty" ...

åîéäå îëì ùáè åùáè çæøå î÷öúï...

(h)

Answer: Nevertheless some members of each tribe did return ...

åäåé ùôéø ëîå 'ëì éåùáéä òìéä' ...

1.

Answer (cont.): And it is therefore considered 'All its inhabitants are on it' ...

ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï ùîðå éåáìåú àò"â ãìà çæøå ëåìï ...

2.

Source: As the Gemara says later - that they counted Yovlos even though they did not all return.

åääéà ãôø÷ äùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìå.) ö"ì ãäìì ìàå ìãøéä ú÷éï àìà éåãò äéä ùäáéú äéä òúéã ìéçøá åìôéëê úé÷ï ôøåæáåì ...

(i)

Alternative Explanation: And we must explain that which is mentioned in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin 36.), that Hillel did not institute it for his generation, rather, he knew that that the Mikdash would be destroyed in the future and therefore he instituted Pruzbal.

åàò"â ãáòé äúí 'äìì ëé ú÷éï ôøåæáåì ìãøéä äåà ãú÷éï àå ìãøé òìîà ú÷éï' ...

(j)

Implied Question: And in spite of the Gemara's She'eilah there as to 'Whether Hillel instituted P'ruzbul for his generation or for future generations' ...

ääéà ìàå ìàáéé ÷áòé ëé àí ìøáà ãîúøõ äúí 'äô÷ø á"ã äéä äô÷ø.'

1.

Answer: That She'eilah does not according to Abaye but according to Rava (See Avodah Berurah), who answers there 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.

2)

TOSFOS DH MI'D'ITZT'RICH HILLEL L'TEKUNI NESINAH BA'AL KORCHO

úåñ' ã"ä îãàéöèøéê äìì ìú÷åðé ðúéðä áòì ëøçå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

[äåé ðúéðä, äà áòìîà ðúéðä áò"ë] ìà äåéà ðúéðä (ôùéèà ãàéï ìå ìàãí ì÷áì îúðä áòì ëøçå åìà äåéà ðúéðä).

(a)

Clarification: ... Is a Nesinah, whereas generally, a forced Nesinah is not considered a Nesinah.

åà"ú, åëé àéöèøéê ìéä ìäáéà øàéä òì æä ãðúéðä áòì ëøçå ìà äåéà ðúéðä? ôùéèà ãàéï ìëåó ìàãí ì÷áì îúðä áòì ëøçå?

(b)

Question #1: Is it really necessary to bring a proof that a forced Nesinah is not a Nesinah? Why is it not obvious that one cannot force someone to accept a gift against his will?

åòåã, äéëé ôìéâ òì æä øá ôôà?

(c)

Question #2: Moreover, how can Rav Papa argue with that? (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 18).

åé"ì, ãåãàé îúðä ãøùåú ùàéï ìå ùåí öåøê ôùéèà ãìà äåéà áòì ëøçå, åøá ôôà ðîé ìà ôìéâ òì æä ...

(d)

Answer: To be sure, it is obvious that a gift that is given voluntarilly, that has no specific motive cannot be given against the will of the recipient - even according to Rav Papa ...

àìà áîúðä ùéù áä öåøê ôìéâé ëîå äëà -ãàîø ìä 'æä âéèê ò"î ùúúï ìé îàúéí æåæ, ùäéà öøéëä ëãé ì÷ééí úðàé äâè, åëâåï ÷áìä ãîúðé' ...

1.

Answer (cont.): And they are arguing here over a gift that has a specific motive - where (for example) he says to her 'Here is your Get on condition you give me two hundred Zuz, which she now needs to give in order to fulfill the condition of the Get, and the receipt of the money in our Mishnah ...

åâí äéëà ãàéëà çåáä ìðåúï ëâåï çåá àå ô÷ãåï, áäà åãàé äåé ðúéðä áòì ëøçå ...

2.

Answer (concl.): And also where there is an obligation to give, such as a debt or a Pikadon, there giving against the recipient's will is certainly considered a Nesinah ...

ëãàéúà ôø÷ äâåæì áúøà (á"÷ ÷éç. åùí) 'äìåäå àå ùäô÷éã àöìå áéùåá, ìà éçæéø ìå áîãáø' -îùîò äà áéùåá îçæéø ìå áòì ëøçå.

(e)

Proof: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Gozel Basra (Bava Kama, Daf 118a & 118b) - 'If he lent him or deposited by him in an inhabited location, he may not return it in the desert - implying that returning it to an inhabited location is permitted even against the owner's will.

åàí úàîø, äà ãúðï áôø÷ îé ùàçæå (âéèéï òã. åùí)' "äøé æä âéèê òì îðú ùúúï ìé àéöèìéúé," åàáãä àéöèìéúå, øáï ùîòåï áï âîìéàì àåîø úúï ãîéä' ...

(f)

Question: The Mishnaeh in Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 74a & 74b) in a case where a man says to his wife states 'Here is your Get on condition you give me my coat back', and where she lost the coat, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel obligates her give him its value ...

åäúí îééøé àôé' áòì ëøçå ãáòì...

1.

Question (cont.): Even against his will ...

îãôìéâé øáðï òìéä, åàîøé 'àéöèìéúå ãå÷à ÷àîø' ?

(g)

Proof: Even against his will - seeing as the Rabanan argue because 'he said specifically his coat'?

ãàáòéà äúí áâîøà 'äàåîø ìàùä "äøé æä âéèê ò"î ùúúðé îàúéí æåæ" åçæø åàîø ìä "îçåìéï ìê" îäå ...

1.

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara asks there what the Din will be regarding someone who says to his wife 'Here is your Get on condition you give me two hundred Zuz' and he is subsequently Mochel her ...

úéáòé ìøáðï, úéáòé ìøùá"â; úéáòé ìøáðï -òã ëàï ìà ÷à àîøé øáðï äúí àìà äéëà ãìà àçìéä ìâáä, àáì äëà äà ÷àîø "îçåìéï ìê" ... '

2.

Proof (cont.): Both according to the Rabanan and according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel; according to the Rabanan - who only say their Din where he is not Mochel her, but here he declared 'Machul lach' ...

åäà ò"ë ãàîøé øáðï 'àéöèìéúå' ãå÷à ÷àîø, áòì ëøçå îééøé ...

3.

Proof (cont.): One is forced to say that the Rabanan who maintain that he meant specifically 'his coat' are speaking where she returns the money against his will ...

ãàé îãòúå, ìà âøò î'îçåìéï ìê' ...

4.

Proof (cont.): Because if it was with his agreement, it would not be worse than 'Mechulin lach' ...

åàô"ä ÷àîø øùá"â 'úúï ìå ãîéä' ...

5.

Proof (concl.): Nevertheless, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that she may give him the money.

àìîà ñáéøà ìéä ìøùá"â ãðúéðä áòì ëøçå äåéà ðúéðä, åà"ë äéëé ÷àîø øáà äëà ãìà äåéà ðúéðä?

(h)

Question (concl.): So we see that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, a forced Nesinah is considered a Nesinah, so how can Rava say here that it is not?

åö"ì ãìøáà îééøé äúí ãàîø øùá"â 'úúï ìå ãîéä' îãòúéä ÷àîø ...

(i)

Answer: We must therefore say that according to Rava, when Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says there that 'she should give him the value of his coat', he means with his consent ...

åàôéìå äëé ìøáðï 'àéöèìéú' ãå÷à ÷àîø, åàéðä îâåøùú...

1.

Answer (cont.): And nevertheless, the Rabanan argue and say that he meant specifically 'his coat', and consequently she is not divorced ...

åäàé áòéà ãäúí...

(j)

Implied Question: And as for the (above-mentioned) She'eilah there ...

àéðä àìéáà ãøáà, ãìøáà åãàé àìéáà ãøáðï àôéìå 'îçåìéï ìê' ìà îäðé.

1.

Answer: That is not according to Rava, in whose opinion the Rabanan hold that even 'Mechulin lach' is not effective.

åàí úàîø, ìøáà ãñ"ì ãàôéìå áòéø ìà äåé ðúéðä áò"ë, à"ë, ìîä äéä ììå÷ç ìäèîéï, ìéîà 'ìà î÷áìéðà' ,åàæ ìà äåé ðúéðä, åúçìåè ìå àçø é"á çãùéí?

(k)

Question: According to Rava, who holds that even in a town there is no Nesinah against the owner's will, why did the purchaser see fit to hide? Why could he not simply refuse to accept it, in which case it would not have been a Nesinah, and he would have got it back after twelve months?

åé"ì, ãàí äéä áòéø, äéä áåù îîðå àí ìà äéä î÷áì, åàô''ä îùîò ãìøáà àôéìå áôðéå ,áò"ë ìà äåéà ðúéðä.

(l)

Answer: Had he been in town, he would have felt embarrassed not to have accepted it; Nevertheless it is implied that according to Rava, even in his presence, it is not considered a Nesinah against his will.

åà"ú ,åäéëé îùîò ãìøáà àôéìå áôðéå áò"ë ìà äåéà ðúéðä , åäéëé îöé ìäåëéç îäëà áôðéå ,åäìà ú÷ðú äìì ìà äéúä ëé àí ùìà áôðéå... ?

(m)

Question: How is it implied that according to Rava, even in his presence, it is not considered a Nesinah against his will, bearing in mind that Hillel's Takanah was specifically not in the owner's presence? ...

åëé àéöèøéê ìéä ìäìì ìú÷åðé, ùìà áôðéå...

1.

Question (cont.): Inasmuch as Hillel only found it necessary to institute his ruling not in the owner's presence

àáì áôðéå áéï îãòúå áéï áòì ëøçå äåé ðúéðä, ëãîú÷éó ìéä øá ôôà?

2.

Question (concl.): But in his presence, the Nesinah is valid irrespective of whether it is with his consent or against his will, as Rav Papa asked him?

åé"ì, ãîåëç äëé, ãàí àéúà ãáôðéå äåé ðúéðä áòì ëøçå, ìà äåä öøéê ìäéìì ìú÷åðé ùìà áôðéå ìäéåú çåìù îòåúéå ììùëä, ãäà àôùø ìæëåú ìå ò"é àçø ...

(n)

Answer: It is evident because, had in his presence against his will been considered a Nesinah, Hillel would not have found it necessary to institute his ruling not in his presence to throw his money into a reserved room, since he could have been Mezakeh it to him through a third person ...

àìà ùîò îéðä îãàéöèøéê ìéä ìäìì ìú÷ï ðúéðä áòì ëøçå, äà áòìîà ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since Hillel found it necessary to institute a forced Nesinah, that generally ... .

åøá ôôà ãàú÷éó ìéä, ìéú ìéä äàé ñáøà.

2.

Answer (concl.): Whereas Rav Papa, who queries Rava, does not hold of this S'vara.

3)

TOSFOS DH CHULSIS

úåñ' ã"ä çåìñéú

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Machlokes Rashi and Rashbam regarding these two terms.)

ôéøù"é ìéèåì îùí àáðéí, å'îöåìä' ìéèåì îùí çåì ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one takes from there stones, whereas from a 'Metzulah' one takes sand.

åøùá"í ôéøù áá"á (ãó ñæ. åùí) 'çåìñéú' ìéèåì äéîðä æëåëéú, å'îöåìä' ëîå (áøëåú ãó è:) îöåìä ùì ãâéí.

(b)

Explanation #2: The Rashbam however, explains in Bava Basra (Daf 16 a & 16b) that from a 'Chulsis' one takes glass whilst a 'Metzulah' is a fish-pond, as the Gemara in B'rachos (Daf 9b) describes it.

4)

TOSFOS DH ASHER LO CHOMAH

úåñ' ã"ä àùø ìå çåîä

(Summary: Tosfos cites two ways of explaining this.)

ôéøù øù"é "ìåà" ëúéá -îùîò ìå åîùîò ìà...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is written "Lo" (with both a 'Vav' and an 'Alef' - implying that it has and that it hasn't ...

ëìåîø àéï ìå òëùéå åäéä ìå ÷åãí ìëï ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Which means that it does not have a wall now, but it did have one before ...

åàéðå ëï ...

(b)

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

áçåîùéï îãåé÷åú ëúéá ["ìà" áàì"ó å÷øé áåé"å] (áåé"å åìà ÷øé áàì"ó).

(c)

Explanation #2: But - in good Chumashim it is written "Lo" with an 'Alef', and read with a 'Vav' (See also Tosfos, Chulin, Daf 65s DH 'Af-al-Pi').

5)

TOSFOS DH MAI KA'AMAR

úåñ' ã"ä îàé ÷àîø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question and explains why the Gemara asks on the Beraisa and not on the Mishnah.)

åëé àéï òéø îå÷ôú çåîä áâìéì àìà âîìà åáòáø äéøãï àìà âãåã?

(a)

Clarification: Is there no town in the Galil that is surrounded by a wall other than Gamla, and in Eiver ha'Yarden other than G'dud?

åàí úàîø, àîàé ìà ôøéê ëîå ëï à'îúðé' ?

(b)

Question: Why does the Gemara not pose the same question on the Mishnah?

åéù ìåîø, ãôøéê ùôéø à'áøééúà, ìôé ùã÷ã÷ä éåúø ãîôøùà áäãéà 'âîìà áâìéì' å'âãåã áòáø äéøãï.'

(c)

Answer: The Gemara is justified in asking (exclusively) on the Beraisa, because it is more particular to mention Gamla and G'dud by name (which the Mishnah doesn't).

2b----------------------------------------2b

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHA NAMI TARTI YERUSHALAYIM HAVU

úåñ' ã"ä äëà ðîé úøúé éøåùìéí äåå

(Summary: Tosfos there why there is only a problem with Rav Ashi, but not with Rava.)

åúéîä, ãìøáà ðîé àðå öøéëéï ìåîø ëï ãúøé éøåùìéí äåå?

(a)

Question: According to Rava as well, we have to say that there are two towns called Yerushalayim (See Avodah Berurah)?

åé"ì, ãìøáà àéï àðå öøéëéï ìåîø áéäåãä úøé éøåùìéí äåå àìà áùàø àøöåú, àáì ìøá àùé ö"ì áéäåãä úøé éøåùìéí äåå.

(b)

Answer: According to Rava, we do not need to say there are two Yerushalayims in Yehudah, but in other countries, whereas according to Rav Ashi, there must be two Yerushalayims in Yehudah.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'KIDSHU AREI CHOMAH

úåñ' ã"ä å÷ãùå òøé çåîä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and elaborates.)

ôé' ìòðéï îëéøú áéú ááúé òøé çåîä åìòðéï ùéìåç îöåøòéí çåõ ìòéø ...

(a)

Clarification: With regard to selling a house in a Bati Arei Chomah and sending Metzora'im outside the town ...

ããå÷à ááúé òøé çåîä öøéê ìùìåç äîöåøòéí çåõ ìçåîä, àáì ùàø (àøöåú) [òééøåú], ìà.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Since it is specifically from Batei Arei Chomah that one sends Metzora'im outside the walls, but not from other towns.

åàáðéí îðåâòåú öøéê ìäùìéç çåõ ìòéø -åàôé' ìà äéå îå÷ôåú îéîåú éäåùò ...

2.

Clarification (concl.): The stones of a plagued house, on the other hand, must be thrown outside the town - even if it did not have a wall around it in the time of Yehoshua ...

åäëé úðéà áúåøú ëäðéí "àúäï" çåõ ìòéø, åàéï àãí çåõ ìëì äòéø àìà çåõ ìòééøåú äîå÷ôåú çåîä áìáã.

(b)

Source: As the Toras Kohanim Darshens "Es'hen" (the stones) you shall throw outside the town, but a person (who is plagued) does not go outside the town, unless it had a wall around it'.

åà"ú, îðìï? äà ìà ëúéá áéú çåîä âáé àãí îöåøò?

(c)

Question: From where do we know this, seeing as the Torah does not mention a walled town in connection with a Metzora?

åàåîø äøá øáéðå éöç÷ ãâîøéðï "çåõ ìîçðä îåùáå" ãëúéá áéä áîöåøò (åé÷øà éâ) î"îåùá" ãëúéá "áéú îåùá òéø çåîä? (ùí ëä).

(d)

Answer: ha'Rav Rabeinu Yitzchak explains that we learn "Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" that is written by a Metzora (Vayikra 13) from "Moshav" - "Beis Moshav Ir Chomah" (Ibid. 25).

åôéøù øù"é ëàï ãî÷ãù ìéä (ìàøòà) áùúé úåãåú åáùéø, åáéú ãéï îäìëéï åùúé úåãåú àçøéäï -ëãàéúà áùáåòåú (ãó èæ. åùí).

(e)

Explanation #1: Rashi here, writes that they sanctify the walls with two Todos and with Shir; Beis-Din walk in front and the two Todos behind them - as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os (Daf 16a & 16b).

åáîñ' ùáåòåú ôéøù"é ãàùëçï ùäéå î÷ãùéï çåîåú éøåùìéí áùúé úåãåú åáùéø, ëùáàå ìäåñéó òì äòéø åòì (äòééøåú) [äòæøåú] ...

(f)

Explanation #2: Whereas in Maseches Shevu'os he states that - 'Although we find the sanctification of the walls of Yerushalayim with two Todos and with Shir, whenever they came to add to the city or the Azaros ...

àáì ùàø (àøöåú) [òééøåú] ìà éãòúé äéàê äéå î÷ãùéï àåúï.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): I do not know how they sanctified the other towns'.

8)

TOSFOS DH MANU YOVLOS L'KADESH SH'MITIN

úåñ' ã"ä îðå éåáìåú ì÷ãù ùîéèéï

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Beraisa cited in the Yerushalmi of Gitin, and elaborates.)

îëàï úéîä ìáøééúà ãúðé áéøåùìîé ãîñëú âéèéï, åøù"é ëúáä áô' äùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìå.) ãúðéà áéøåùìîé "åæä ãáø äùîéèä, ùîåè ... "

(a)

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on the Beraisa cited by the Yerushalmi in Maseches Gitin - which Rashi cites in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 36a). The Beraisa, commenting on the double Lashon in the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah Shamot", explains ...

'áùúé ùîéèåú äëúåá îãáø, àçã ùîéèú éåáì åàçã ùîéèú ùáéòéú; áæîï ùàúä îùîè [éåáì] àúä îùîè [ùáéòéú]; áæîï ùàé àúä îùîè éåáì, àé àúä îùîè ùáéòéú...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): 'The Pasuk is referring to two Sh'mitos (of the land), one, Sh'mitas ha'Yovel, the other, Sh'mitas Shevi'is; When you are Meshamet Yovel, you should also be Meshamet Shevi'is, but when you are not Meshamet Yovel, then you should not be Meshamet Shevi'is either' ...

åëàï àåîø ãìà îðå éåáìåú àìà ì÷ãù ùîéèéï?

(b)

Question: Whereas here it says that they only counted Yovlos in order to sanctify Sh'mitin?

åôéøù øù"é ô' äùåìç (ùí) ã'ääéà ãòøëéï îãøáðï äéà- åàéï îùîò ëï áú"ë.

(c)

Answer #1: Rashi there answers that 'The case in Erchin (here) is mi'de'Rabanan - though the Toras Kohanim does not imply this'.

åàåîø àðé ãúðàé äéà' .

(d)

Answer #2: He also cites an opinion that it is a Machlokes Tana'im.

åòåã àåø"ú, ãäê áøééúà ãîééúé øéù ôø÷ äùåìç (ùí)' øáé àåîø "åæä ãáø äùîéèä ùîåè" -áùúé ùîéèåú äëúåá îãáø -àçú ùîéèú ÷ø÷ò åàçú ùîéèú ëñôéí' ìà àééøé áçøéùä åæøéòä àìà áùãåú äçåæøåú ìáòìéí áéåáì ...

(e)

Answer #3: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam explains, the Beraisa cited at the beginning of Perek ha'Shole'ach - 'Rebbi Omer "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot" - the Pasuk is referring to two Sh'mitos - one the Sh'mitah of land, the other, the Sh'mitah of money', is not talking about plowing and planting but about fields reverting to the4ir owners in the Yovel ...

åäùîèú ÷ø÷ò ÷øé 'éåáì' ,åìùáéòéú ÷øé 'äùîèú ëñôéí - ' ãùáéòéú îùîèú ëñôéí åìà éåáì .

(f)

Explanation: It calls Hashmatas Karka 'Yovel', whereas when it mentions 'Shevi'is', it is referring to Hashmatas Kesafim (loans [See Avodah Berurah]) - since Shevi'is is Meshamet Kesafim but not Yovel.

åä"÷ - áæîï ùàúä îùîè éåáì àúä îùîè ùáéòéú , åáæîï äæä ùàéï éåáì ðåäâ, àé àúä îùîè ùáéòéú, ëääéà ãéøåùìîé ...

1.

Explanation: What the Tana means is that - When you are Meshamet Yovel you are Meshamet Shevi'is, but nowadays, when the Yovel does not apply, you are not Meshassmet Shevi'is, like the Yerushalmi says ...

àáì øáðï ôìéâé òìéä ãøáé åàîøé ãéù éåáì àó òì ôé ùàéï ùáéòéú ...

(g)

Answer #3 (cont.): The Rabanan however, argue with Rebbi, and say that Yovel applies even when there is no Sh'mitah (See Avodah Berurah) ...

ëãàéúà áúå''ë 'îðéï ùéòùä ùáéòéú àó òì ôé ùàéï éåáì? ú"ì (åé÷øà ëä ç) "åäéå ìê ùáò ùáúåú äùðéí" ...

1.

Source: As stated in the Toras Kohanim - 'From where do we know that one practices Shevi'is, even when there is no Yovel? Because the Torah writes (in Vayikra 25:8) "ve'Hayu l'cha Sheva Shabsos ha'Shanim" ...

åîðéï ùéòùä éåáì àò"ô ùàéï ùáéòéú? ú"ì (ùí) ''åäéå ìê úùò åàøáòéí ùðä'' ' ...

(h)

Answer #3 (cont.): And from where do we know that one practices Yovel, even when there is no Sh'mitah? Because the Torah writes (Ibid.) "ve'Hayu l'cha Tesha ve'Arba'im Shanah" ...

[åñåâéà] ãäëà àúéà ëøáðï.

1.

Answer #3 (concl.): And the current Sugya goes like the Rabanan.

îéäå éù ìééùá ääéà ãúåøú ëäðéí àôé' ëø' ...

(i)

Alternative Explanation: It is possible however, to establish the Toras Kohanim even according to Rebbi ...

åäà ãúðé 'ùáéòéú àò"ô ùàéï éåáì' - éù ìôøùä àò"ô ùìà ðäâå éåáì åäðéçå áçèàí ...

(j)

Alternative Explanation (cont.): And when it says 'Shevi'is Af-al-Pi she'Ein Yovel - it means even though they did not keep the Sh'mitah, ignoring it sinfully ...

åëãúðé áô"÷ ãøàù äùðä (ãó è: åùí) ''éåáì äéà'', àò"ô ùìà ùîèå åàò"ô ùìà ú÷òå ...

(k)

Source: Like the Beraisa cited at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah (Daf 9b 10a) "Yovel Hi" - even though they were not Meshamet the land, even though they did not blow the Shofar (in the Yovel) ...

éëåì àò"ô ùìà ùìçå, ú"ì ''äéà'', ãáøé ø' éäåãä...

1.

Source (cont.): Perhaps it is Yovel even if they did not send the Avadim (Ivrim) away; Therefore the Torah writes "Hi", Divrei Rebbi Yehudah ...

øáé éåñé àåîø ''éåáì" àò"ô ùìà ùîèå åàò"ô ùìà ùìçå, éëåì àó òì ôé ùìà ú÷òå, ú"ì ''äéà'' '.

2.

Source (concl.): Rebbi Yossi says "Yovel", even if they were not Meshamet, and even if they did not send away the Avadim. Perhaps it is Yovel even if they did not blow the Shofar; Therefore the Torah writes "Hi" '.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF