אי דאית ליה ארעא אחריתי עליה הדר‎—If he has other land, he will go after it O VERVIEW שמואל ruled that if ראובן sold שמעון a field without אחריות, he cannot testify on behalf of שמעון (against לוי, who claims it is his), because perhaps ראובן wants this field to remain by שמעון, so that sראובן' creditor יהודה, will be able to collect it as payment for his loan to ראובן‎. Therefore ראובן is a נוגע בעדות‎. The גמרא asks; if ראובן has other property, then יהודה must collect from ראובן (and not from שמעון), so why is ראובן a נוגע בעדות‎. And if ראובן has no other assets, what difference does it make to ראובן whether יהודה will or will not be able to collect from שמעון‎? In either case ראובן does not have to pay, so why is he a נוגע בעדות‎?! Our תוספות offers an alternate solution. ------------------------------ תוספות offers an alternate solution: הוה מצי לשנויי כגון שעשאה אפותיקי דאז לא הדר אארעא אחריתי דאית ליה – The גמרא could have answered that the case here is where for instance ראובן made this field (before he sold it to שמעון) as an אפותיקי, so then יהודה cannot go after the other land that ראובן has – ואם תפול ביד המערער יפרע לו אחרת ומשום הכי אינו מעיד עליה דנוגע בעדות הוא: So if the field will fall into the hands of the protester לוי, then ראובן will need to pay יהודה another field, so therefore he cannot testify on behalf of שמעון, for ראובן is a נוגע בעדות‎. S UMMARY We can justify sשמואל' ruling in the case of an אפותיקי‎. One may collect מנכסים משעובדים if it is an אפותיקי, even though there are בני חורין‎. T HINKING IT OVER Is there an advantage in תוספות proposed solution over the sגמרא' answer, and if yes, why did not the גמרא utilize it?!
מאי נפקא מינה‎—What difference is it [to him] Overview The גמרא asked if the seller (ראובן) has no other assets, what difference is it to him whether the buyer (שמעון) wins the case (against לוי), or not; in either case he does not have to pay (since he has no assets). תוספות struggles with this question. ------------------------------- תוספות asks: תימה דנפקא מינה שיפטרו אם יתעשר – It is astounding! there is a difference to ראובן, whether שמעון retains the field or not, for if שמעון retains the field, ראובן will be exempt from paying יהודה, even if ראובן becomes rich later! תוספות answers: ושמא בשביל כן אין לפוסלו לעדות כיון דהשתא לא מרויח מידי: And perhaps we cannot disqualify ראובן to testify on account of this (which may happen in the future), since now (when he is testifying) he is gaining nothing (for now he has no assets, and cannot pay his creditor). S UMMARY One may not be a נוגע בעדות on account of something which may happen in the future. T HINKING IT OVER Is this answer of תוספות (that we are not concerned for the future) applicable only in a case where we do not know for sure that the seller owes money, or is it applicable even if we know that the seller owes money?
דינא הוא דמפצי ליה‎—The rule is that he reimburses him O VERVIEW The גמרא ruled that if ראובן sold a donkey to שמעון, and a gentile took away the donkey from שמעון (by force), claiming that this donkey was stolen from him, ראובן is obligated to reimburse שמעון‎. Our תוספות clarifies this ruling. ------------------------------------ תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דלימא ליה אייתי ראיה דבדין טרפה ואשלם לך‎ – The רשב"א is astounded; let ראובן say to שמעון, ‘bring me proof that the gentile took it away from you legally, and then I will pay you’ – דאפילו לגבי ישראל מצי למימר הכי כל שכן לגבי עכו"ם – For even regarding a ישראל (who took away an item by force from a buyer), the seller can say to the buyer, ‘prove that it was taken away from you legally, and I will pay you’, so certainly regarding a gentile (who is generally ‘dishonest’) that the seller can make this claim; why is the rule that the seller must reimburse him?! תוספות answer: ויש לומר דמיירי כגון שבדיני עכו"ם דן עמו ובדיניהם הויא דעכו"ם הלכך חייב לפצותו: And one can say; that this is a case where they went to a gentile court, and they ruled in the gentile’s favor, therefore he is obligated to reimburse him. S UMMARY The ruling of a gentile court is sufficient to validate a claim. T HINKING IT OVER Shortly the גמרא qualifies this ruling that he must reimburse him, only if the gentile claimed the donkey but not the saddle, if, however he claimed the saddle as well, he need not reimburse him. If we are relying on the proof of the ‘saddle’, why is it necessary to establish that the gentile was vindicated in court?! And if he was vindicated in court why do we need the proof from the saddle?!
אבל מסר לו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר כולי‎—However if he transferred it to him without witnesses, since he could say, etc. O VERVIEW The משנה rules that a craftsman (אומן) has no חזקה‎. רבה qualified this rule that it applies only if there are witnesses that it was given to the אומן‎. However if there are no witnesses, the אומן is believed, for he has a מיגו, since he could have said, ‘this never happened (להד"ם)’. Our תוספות explains what is meant by the מיגו of להד"ם. -------------------------------------- אין לפרש מתוך שהיה יכול לומר אין בידי כלל‎ – We cannot explain the מיגו to mean, since he could have said, ‘I have nothing of yours in my possession’, we should therefore believe him that he bought it; this cannot be – דהא בראה מיירי כדמוכח אתקפתא דאביי דראה עבדו‎ – For this is a case where witnesses saw the item by the אומן, as is evident from the challenge of אביי in the ruling of ‘ he saw his slave’, etc. תוספות explains the meaning of להד"ם: אלא הכי פירושו מתוך שיכול לומר לא היו דברים מעולם שבא לידו בתורת אומנות‎ – Rather this is the explanation of the מיגו; since he could say, ‘it never happened that it came into my possession as a job – אלא בתורת מכר אי נמי אתה מכרתו לאחר ואחר מכרו לי כדפירש הקונטרס – Rather it was sold to me’, or he may also claim, ‘ you sold it to someone else, and he sold it to me’, as the רשב"ם explained – In summation: the מיגו of להד"ם is that the אומן could have claimed. ‘it was never given to me as a craftsman, rather I bought it from you, or from someone else who bought it from you’, therefore if he claims, ‘I bought it from you after you gave it to me to repair’, the אומן is believed. However להד"ם cannot mean that the אומן claims that he does not have it, because we are (even) discussing a case where witnesses saw the item by the אומן‎. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי איריא אומן דאין לו חזקה היכא דמסר לו בעדים‎ – And if you will say why is the משנה teaching that an אומן (specifically) has no חזקה, (and only) in a case where it was transferred to him in the presence of witnesses, as רבה maintains – אפילו אחר נמי כיון שיש עדים שבא לידו בתורת פקדון‎ – Even another who is not an אומן, also has no חזקה, since there are עדים that it came into his possession as a deposit – ואפילו לא ראה למאי דמסיק שצריך להחזיר לו בעדים‎ – And even if it was not seen in his possession currently, nevertheless there is no חזקה, according to this which the גמרא concludes in the name of רבה that he must return it to him with witnesses – ולקמן פריך לה אבל מכל מקום קשה דמאי סלקא דעתיה דרבה – And later, indeed, ר"נ בר יצחק asks this very same question, but nevertheless there is a difficulty, for what did רבה assume to differentiate between an אומן and a non-אומן‎?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר כגון שמסר לו בעדים סתם ולא פירש בפניהם אם בתורת מכר אם בתורת פקדון – And we can say that we are discussing a case where for instance he ‘merely’ transferred the item in the presence of witnesses, but did not specify in the presence of the witnesses whether this transference is for a sale or as a deposit – ולהכי דוקא אומן אין לו חזקה דמסתמא לתקנו מסר לו כיון דלא פירש – So therefore in this case, only an אומן has no חזקה, for presumably, he gave it to the אומן to repair it, since the אומן did not specify that it was a sale – אבל אחר מדלא פירש שהוא פקדון מסתמא מכר או מתנה הוא‎ – However regarding someone else, who is not an אומן, since the owner did not specify that it was a deposit, presumably it was either a sale or a gift – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ורב נחמן בר יצחק דפריך בסוף הסוגיא אומן הוא דאין לו חזקה הא אחר יש לו חזקה‎ – And רנב"י who challenged רבה in the end of this סוגיא, saying why is there this difference that only an אומן אין לו חזקה however אחר יש לו חזקה; what is the challenge, תוספות just explained the difference?! תוספות responds: לא מסתבר ליה לרב נחמן לאוקומה בראיה בלא ידיעה דלא שכיח‎ – It does not seem reasonable to ר"נ to establish the rule of אומן in a case where עדים saw, without knowing what they saw, for this is uncommon! כדפריך [לעיל מיניה] אי דאיכא עדים ליחזו עדים מאי קאמרי – A רבא asked previously on אביי, ‘ if there are עדים, let us see what the עדים say – דלא שכיח שימסור בפניהם ולא ידעי הקציצה‎ – For it is not common that he transferred it in the presence of עדים, and the עדים do not know the fixed price, so just as there we assume the עדים know the price – והכא נמי רב נחמן בר יצחק לא פריך אלא מכח סברא זו‎ – So here too ר"נ only asked his question on רבה based on this logic that if there are עדים, they certainly are aware of the circumstances surrounding this transfer – והכי פריך אי דאיכא עדים אחר אמאי יש לו חזקה‎ – And this is the challenge of רנב"י, if there are עדים why does the אחר have a חזקה‎?! הא על כרחך ידעי עדים דבתורת פקדון אתא לידיה‎ – For perforce the עדים know that it came into his possession as a deposit (just like by the אומן) – דלא מסתבר לאוקומה בדבר דלא ידעי דלא שכיח כלל‎ – For it is not logical to establish this ruling in a situation where [for instance] it is a matter where the עדים do not know the circumstances, for it is totally unusual! In summation: רבה maintains that he reason an אומן is different from אחר (in a case where there are עדים), is because nothing was specified in the presence of the עדים, therefore by an אומן we assume that it was for repair and by אחר we assume it was for a sale. However רנב"י maintains that this is a very unusual situation that the עדים do not know the details, so the משנה is not discussing it. Therefore there is the question why is an אחר different from an אומן‎. תוספות cites a question and answer from the רשב"ם: הקשה בקונטרס אמאי יש חזקה לאומן מאי שנא מדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר – The רשב"ם asked why did רבה state that an אומן has a חזקה if it was given to him without עדים; why is this different from items which are made to lend out or to rent out; where the rule is that by these items there is no חזקה‎? ותירץ דדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר שייך גבי כל אדם‎ – And he answered that דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר applies to all people – אבל הכא מצי למימר אומן אינך רגיל אצלי לתקן – However here the אומן can claim, ‘you are not accustomed to have me repair your items’ – תוספות offers his resolution to this issue: ורבינו יצחק אומר דאפילו רגיל לתקן אצלו יש לחלק‎ – And the ר"י says that even if he is accustomed to repair by this אומן, nevertheless we can distinguish between דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר (where אין לו חזקה) and the case of אומן (where יש לו חזקה [if there are no עדים]) – דדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר שייך בין לגבי אדם שמכיר שהוא נאמן‎ – For regarding the rule by דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר that there is no חזקה, this rule applies whether it is regarding a person whom he recognizes as being honest – בין מכיר שאינו נאמן ואין יכול כל שעה להעמיד עדים כשרוצה להשאיל ולהשכיר‎ – Or whether he recognizes that he is not honest (he lends and rents to everyone), and he cannot have עדים present every time when he wants to lend or rent out. the reason he cannot always require witnesses to be present, is in order – שלא להשיא עצמו שם רע בשכיניו – That he should not make a bad name for himself among his neighbors – אבל לאומן אם צריך הוא לתקן יכול ליתן לאומן המכיר שהוא נאמן או להביא עדים‎ – However regarding an אומן, if he needs an item to be repaired, he can give it to an אומן whom he recognizes as being honest, or to bring witnesses when he gives him the item to repair – לכך יש לו חזקה שלא בעדים: Therefore the אומן has a חזקה if it was not delivered to him in the presence of עדים‎. S UMMARY The מגו of להד"ם is that it was never given to me for repairs, rather I bought it from you initially. The distinction between אומן ואחר where there are עדים is in a case where they were not explicit as to the nature of the transaction. The difference between דברים העשויין להשאיל and אומן (without עדים) is that the former applies to all people while the אומן can claim you are not my customer (רשב"ם), or that by an אומן he should have brought עדים if he did not trust him. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Why is the מגו claim of the אומן, that I initially bought it from you, a more believable claim, than the actual claim of the אומן, that I bought it from you after you handed it to me for repairs?! 2. תוספות explains why an אומן has a חזקה in a case where there are no עדים‎. Seemingly if he has a חזקה, why is it necessary to say that he is believed because of a מיגו, he should be believed because of the חזקה‎?!
אי הכי אפילו בעדים נמי מתוך שיכול לומר החזרתיו לך כולי‎—If so even with witnesses also, since he can say, I returned it to you, etc. Overview אביי asked רבה, according to you that an אומן is believed, when there are no עדים, since he has a מגו of להד"ם, so too he should be believed even if there are עדים, since he has a מגו that he could have said, ‘I returned it to you’. תוספות discusses this question. -------------------------------------- פירוש בשלמא לדידי דלא מפליגנא בין יש עדים לאין עדים – The explanation of sאביי' question on רבה is; the משנה is understood according to me (אביי), that I do not differentiates whether there was עדים or whether there was no עדים‎ – אלא בראה הוא דמפליגנא‎ – Rather, I differentiate whether it was ראה or not; meaning that in a case – היכא דראה אפילו היכא דליכא עדים לא מהימן כדאמר אביי בסמוך – Where it is ראה, even where there were no עדים that can testify that he gave it to the אומן, nevertheless since it was ראה, he is not believed, as אביי states shortly – והיכא דלא ראה אף על גב דאיכא עדים מהימן במיגו דמצי אמר החזרתיו לך – And where there was no ראה, the rule is that even though there are עדים that he gave it to the אומן, nevertheless the אומן is believed that he bought it, with a מגו that he could have said, ‘I returned it to you’, and then he would be believed since there is no ראה – אלא לדידך היכא דאיכא עדים אפילו לא ראה דלא מהימנא‎ – However according to you (רבה), since you maintain in a case where there are עדים, so even if לא ראה he is not believed, the question is – אמאי אינו נאמן במיגו דאי בעי אמר החזרתיו לך‎ – Why is he not believed with a מיגו that he could have said, ‘I returned it to you’?! In summation, אביי is challenging רבה who maintains that believing the אומן is only dependent on whether there are עדים when it was given to the אומן, or not, but it makes no difference whether we know that the אומן has the item now (ראה), or not. The question then is just as he is believed when there are no עדים because of the מגו of להד"ם, the אומן should also be believed even if there are עדים because of the מיגו of החזרתיו‎. However according to אביי what matters is only if it is ראה or not, therefore the משנה is discussing a case of ראה, regardless whether there are עדים or not. תוספות is not satisfied with this explanation: ומיהו קשה דלשון אי הכי אפילו בעדים נמי לא משמע הכי – However there is a difficulty with this explanation, for the language of אביי asking, ‘ if this is so, even with עדים, he should also be believed’, this language does not fit with the previous explanation – אלא משמע אי הכי דשלא בעדים נאמן במיגו בעדים נמי הוה לך למימר מיגו‎ – Rather it implies, ‘if it is so that without עדים the אומן is believed with the מיגו of להד"ם, so even with עדים we should also employ the מיגו of החזרתי and he should be believed; however – בשלמא לדידי דלית לי מיגו שלא בעדים, בעדים נמי לית לי מיגו – It is understood according to me (אביי) that I do not consider a מיגו when there are no עדים (if it is ראה), so even when there are עדים there is also no מיגו‎ – אלא לדידך קשה ורבינו תם דחק לפרש ואין נראה כלל לרבינו יצחק: However according to you (רבה) who maintains a מיגו when there are no עדים, t he difficulty is, there should also be a מיגו when there are עדים‎. And the ר"ת insisted on explaining the question of אביי (as we said previously?), however it does not appear at all to be correct according to the ר"י. S UMMARY Seemingly the question of אביי is if רבה distinguishes only between יש עדים ואין עדים but not whether ראה or not, there should be a מיגו by יש עדים just like אין עדים‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Previously תוספות taught that according to אביי the statement of רבה was in a case of ראה; how can then אביי ask that even if there are עדים, he should be believed with a מיגו of החזרתיו, how can he claim החזרתיו if it is ראה‎?! 2. Why can’t we say that אביי maintains that there is never a מיגו by ראה and there is always a מיגו by לא ראה, and the פשט is like תוספות says in the end, because אביי assumes that the משנה is in a case of ראה (and that רבה assumes that it is in a case of לא ראה).
