1)

TOSFOS DH "b'Shelavah"

תוס' ד"ה "בשלוה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara's answer.)

פירש בקונטרס שאם לא אפרע עד זמן פלוני בא ומשכנני מקרקע זו ותהא שלך וכל זמן שלא בא ישראל ומשכנו הוי בחזקת עובד כוכבים וגבי עבד כי האי גוונא קנסוה רבנן לישראל הואיל ועבר הזמן ולא פרע ואע"פ שלא משכנו עדיין

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that he said that if I will not pay until a certain time, you can come and take collateral from this land, and it will be yours. As long as the Jewish lender does not come and take the collateral, it is in the possession of the Nochri. In the similar case involving a slave (as opposed to a field), the Rabbanan gave a fine to the Jewish borrower. They gave the fine because the time came and he did not pay back, even though the Nochri did not yet take the option to possess the slave.

וקשה דהוה ליה למימר אידי ואידי דמטא זמניה

(b)

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara should have said that both cases are when the time to pay has already came (as it did in the previous answers).

לכך נראה דאתא לשנויי שנויא קמא הא דמטא זמניה והא דלא מטא זמניה והא דאקשינן גבי עבד דמטא זמניה צריכא למימר בשלוה על מנת למשכנו ולא משכנו דס"ד כיון דלא משכנו עדיין לא יצא לחירות קא משמע לן דהואיל ובידו למשכנו דיוצא לחירות.

(c)

Answer: This answer is coming to answer the question asked on the first answer, which said that the Beraisa regarding a field is discussing when the time has not yet come, and the Beraisa regarding the slave is when it has come. The Gemara asked, if so, the case of the slave is obvious! (Note: Of course he should be let go when he must be transferred to the Nochri. This is the fine established by the Rabbanan!) This answer is therefore answering this question by saying that the case of the slave is when he borrowed and set his slave up as collateral, but the lender did not yet take the borrower up on his offer. One might think that because he did not yet take him as collateral, he should not go free. This is why the Beraisa must say that because the Nochri could technically take him as collateral, he already goes free.

2)

TOSFOS DH "ha'Mocher"

תוס' ד"ה "המוכר"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the definition of a Farhang.)

פי' בקונטרס מציק ושם עלילות ומכרו לו באותן דמים שהעליל

(a)

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that "Farhang" means a blackmailer. The Jew sold him his slave in exchange for the extortion money.

וקשה דלא שייך על זה לשון מכירה ולישנא שהיה לו לפייס ולא פייס לא משמע הכי

1.

Question#1: This is difficult, as it is not fitting to say that this is a sale. Additionally, the term that he could have appeased him and didn't does not imply that the person is a blackmailer.

ועוד דמדמי למוכרו לשלשים יום

2.

Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara compares this to someone who is sold for thirty days.

ונראה דהפרהנג נוטל עבדו על כורחו אלא שנותן לו דמים לכך פריך דאמאי יצא לחירות כיון דהוי בעל כורחו כמו גבאו בחובו

(b)

Explanation#2: It seems that a "Farhang" takes his slave against his will. However, he pays him for this. This is why it asks, why should he go free, being that the sale was done against his will? It is similar to the slave being collected due to a debt (where the Jew did nothing to specifically target his slave as the thing to be collected due to the debt)!

ומשני דהיה לו לפייס דכיון דנותן דמים ודאי היה מתפייס בדבר מועט ומדמי לו נמי למוכרו לשלשים יום דאחר שגומר מלאכתו דרכו להחזירו לישראל וישראל מחזיר לו הדמים.

1.

The Gemara answers that he should have appeased him. Being that the Farhang is giving money, he would have been appeased with something small. It compares this to selling a slave for thirty days, as after he finishes his work the slave is normally returned to the Jew, and the Jew gives him back his money.

3)

TOSFOS DH "v'Kosev"

תוס' ד"ה "וכותב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding what the problem would be with having the documents written in an idolatrous court.)

פירש בקונטרס אף על פי דחשיבות הוא להן

(a)

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that even though this shows them some importance towards the idolaters, it is permitted.

וקשה דשטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים מכשרינן ולא מפלגינן בין לכתחילה בין לדיעבד

(b)

Question: This is difficult. We validate documents that go to Nochri courts, and we do not make a difference between Lechatchilah and b'Dieved. (Note: The Maharam explains that according to Rashi this should at least be forbidden Lechatchilah, as it glorifies the name of idolaters.)

ומפרש רבינו תם דאע"ג דנראה כמקיים המקח שרי הכא

1.

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that even though this looks like he is willingly upholding the sale (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh), it is permitted in this case.

וההיא דפרק קמא דע"ז (דף יג.) הולכין ליריד של עובדי כוכבים ולוקחים מהן בהמה ועבדים מפני שהוא כמציל מידם ומעלה בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים התם נמי מקיים המקח ומתפרסם הדבר שמהנה לעבודת כוכבי' ואפי' הכי שרי.

2.

In Avodah Zarah (13a), the Gemara says that one may go to a fair of idolaters and buy from them an animal and slaves because it is like one is saving his money from them. He can therefore also have documents of the purchase written up in a court of idolaters. There, as well, he upholds the sale in this fashion and word is spread that he is benefiting idolatry. Even so, it is permitted.

4)

TOSFOS DH "Oh Lav Davka"

תוס' ד"ה "או לאו דוקא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the amount of the fine.)

פירש בקונטרס דלא קנסינן ליה כולי האי וגוזמא קאמר

(a)

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that (this possibility means) we do not really give him such a high fine. It is a term of exaggeration.

וקשה דאם כן איזה שיעור יהיב דאכתי לא ידע ההיא דקונסין אותו עד עשרה דנימא ביה ההוא שיעורא

(b)

Question: This is difficult. If so, what amount did it state beforehand? We still do not know a real amount of how much less it would be than ten times the amount, in order to determine what the real amount is! (Note: How can the Gemara give an exaggerated term when we do not know how much he should really pay!)

ונראה לפרש או לאו דוקא אלא אפילו ביותר ממאה קנסינן ליה עד דפריק כענין שפי' בקונטרס באיכא דאמרי ומייתי מבהמה דקונסין אותו עד עשרה בדמיה אלמא לאו דוקא דהוא הדין טפי כדקאמר הכא עד מאה גבי עבדים והוא הדין דהכא לאו דוקא.

(c)

Explanation#2: It seems that this phrase "Oh Lav Davka" -- "Or maybe not exactly" means that we would even fine him more than one hundred times his value, until he would redeem the slave. This is as Rashi explained in the second version, similar to the law regarding an animal that we fine him until ten times the amount. This implies that it is not saying an exact amount, and it means even more, as it says here regarding up to one hundred servants. This is what the Gemara means here when it says "Not exactly."

5)

TOSFOS DH "Hasam d'Isura d'Oraisa"

תוס' ד"ה "התם דאיסורא דאורייתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that our Gemara and the Gemara in Bechoros employ different lines of reasoning, both of which could have been used in both Gemaros.)

ובפרק כל פסולי המוקדשין (בכורות לד:) גבי צרם אוזן הבכור קאמר דליכא למיפשט מהכא דשאני עבד דמפקע ליה ממצות

(a)

Observation: In Bechoros (34b) regarding someone who makes a nick in the ear of a Bechor (making it unfit to be a Korban), the Gemara says that we cannot prove anything from the case of selling a slave to a Nochri, as selling a slave makes him unable to perform Mitzvos.

אם כן הוה מצי למימר הכא אם תימצי לומר דהתם לא קנסו הכא קנסו משום דמפקע ליה ממצות וכן התם הוה מצי למימר איפכא כי הכא.

1.

If so, it seems like our Gemara could also have said that if you will say that they did not make a fine there (regarding a Bechor), here one might make a fine because he is taking the slave away from keeping the Mitzvos. Similarly, there the Gemara could have said the opposite just as we say here (that making a blemish in a Bechor is a Torah prohibition, as opposed to selling a slave that is a Rabbinic enactment).

44b----------------------------------------44b

6)

TOSFOS DH "Netaivah"

תוס' ד"ה "נטייבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the meaning of the Melachos done on Shemitah mentioned in our Gemara, and when we establish a fine even for the sinner's son.)

פי' בקונטרס נזדבלה

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the case is that his field was fertilized on Shemitah.

וקשה דהא איסורא דרבנן הוא והיכי פשיט מינה בבכורות בפ' פסולי המוקדשין (דף לד: אצרם אזן דהוי איסורא דאורייתא וכן הכא מפקע ליה ממצות היכי פשיט מינה

(b)

Question: This is difficult, as this is a Rabbinic prohibition. How can the Gemara in Bechoros (34b) extrapolate from here regarding nicking the ear of a Bechor, which is a Torah prohibition? Similarly, here the slave is being taken away from being able to perform the Mitzvos. How can we derive anything from this case to these laws?

ומפרש ר"ח נטייבה חרש בה חרישה יתירא דהוי דאורייתא ונדיירה כפירוש הקונטרס ואף על פי שהוא דרבנן חשיב טפי מנתקווצה ומייתי ראיה מנטייבה

(c)

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this means that he plowed a lot in the field, which is a Torah prohibition. Nedairah means what Rashi explained it means (causing fertilization). Even though it is Rabbinic in nature, it is worse than Niskavtzah (taking thorns out of the field for beautification). The proof is brought from Netaivah.

ומיהו אכתי קשה הכא היכי פשיט דילמא עבד שאני דמפקע ליה ממצות חמיר טפי מאיסורא דאורייתא כדאמרינן בפרק כל פסולי המוקדשין (שם דף לד:

(d)

Question: However, this is still difficulty. How can our Gemara extrapolate a law regarding a slave from this? Perhaps a slave is more stringent, as selling him to a Nochri makes him unable to perform Mitzvos. Perhaps this is even more stringent than a Torah prohibition, as stated in Bechoros (ibid.).

ואומר ר"ת דגבי שביעית אית לן להחמיר טפי מבשום מקום לפי שהיו מזלזלין בה כדאמרינן בסוף הניזקין (לקמן נד.) שהיו חשודין על השביעית לכך מייתי שפיר מינה דלא קנסו בנו אחריו

(e)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that regarding Shemitah we should be stringent more than when dealing with other Mitzvos, as people denigrated (the observance of) Shemitah. This is as stated later (54a), that people were suspected to transgress Shemitah. This is why the Gemara brings a good proof from the fact that they did not make a fine for his son.

ובשטר שיש בו רבית שקונסים אותו דמשמע לעולם אפילו בנו

(f)

Implied Question: We do issue a fine regarding a loan document that includes interest, and the implication is that this is forever, even for his son. (Note: Why, in this case, do we include the son?)

כיון דקנסו זכה בו הלוה

(g)

Answer: Being that they made the fine, the borrower automatically acquires the fine (meaning he does not have to pay).

ובשנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מנה וזה מאתים דאמר ר' יוסי הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו (ב"מ דף לז.)

(h)

Implied Question: There is a case in Bava Metzia (37a) where two people deposited money with someone, one depositing one hundred and one two hundred. Rebbi Yosi rules that everything should remain deposited until Eliyahu Ha'Navi comes. (Note: Why, in this case, do we say that nobody can ever have it?)

התם קנסינן להו כי היכי דלודי ואם היה מחזיר לבנו לא היה מודה.

(i)

Answer: There the fine is established in order that the person making the false claim will admit. If we would allow the money to be returned to his son, he would not admit that he is lying.

7)

TOSFOS DH "she'Niskavtzah"

תוס' ד"ה "שנתקווצה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case is discussing loose thorns and not ones connected to the ground.)

פי' ר"ח קוצין התלושים בה וכן מפרש בירושלמי

(a)

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this is referring to thorns that are loose in the field. This is also the explanation advanced by the Yerushalmi.

אבל מחוברים הן אסורין מדאורייתא כדאמרינן בפרק הבונה (שבת דף קג.) התולש עולשין והמזרד זרדין אם ליפות הקרקע כל שהוא אע"פ דפטר התם בארעא דחבריה הכא ליכא לאוקמי בהכי דשביעית לא מיפטר משום מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.

1.

However, if they are attached it is forbidden according to Torah law to detach them. This is as stated in Shabbos (103a), that if someone detaches a type of grass or reed in order to make the land look nice, even if he only detaches a small amount, it is forbidden. Even though the Gemara there says that a person who does so on Shabbos is exempt if he does so in his friend's land (as he does not care if his friend's land looks nice), there is no way to say that this is also the case regarding Shemitah (that he is doing so in his friend's land). This is because regarding transgressing Shemitah there is no exemption based on Melachah she'Ainah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

8)

TOSFOS DH "l'Chutzah la'Aretz"

תוס' ד"ה "לחוצה לארץ"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the fine is necessary.)

ואם תאמר היכי דמי אי אזיל מנפשיה איבד את זכותו כדאמר בשמעתין דבעל כרחו אינו יכול להוציאו כדאמרינן בשלהי כתובות (דף קי:) דאין הכל מוציאין

(a)

Question: What is the case? If he will go on his own he has lost his right, as our Gemara says that he cannot force him to leave. This is also as stated in Kesuvos (110b) that not everyone can take someone out. (Note: Even if he did not sell him, he could not take him back to Chutz la'Aretz.)

ויש לומר דמיד כשמכרו קנסינן ליה פן ישתדלנו לוקח בדברים לילך אחריו.

(b)

Answer: The case is that we levy this fine at the time of the sale, lest the buyer actually convince the slave to go with him to Chutz la'Aretz.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF