Amud 3a

תוס' ד"ה התם

There, there certainly is a swindler - התם ודאי איכא רמאי

Summary: A ודאי רמאי is punished that he does not even receive what is due to him. If he is lying unknowingly, he is not considered a רמאי.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה אי

Or you can also say; there he punished them in order that he should admit - אי נמי התם קניס כי היכי דלודי

Summary: According to the second answer, ר' יוסי maintains יהא מונה, only when it will help resolve the case (and there is a ודאי רמאי).

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה אלא

Rather, it is preferable as we answered initially - אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

Summary: It is possible to assume that ר' יוסי will rule יהא מונח if two criteria are met; ודאי רמאי and איכא פסידא לרמאי; however it seems that he will rule יהא מונח if there is ודאי רמאי (even if there is no פסידא לרמאי).

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה גבי

By a חנוני also, it should be 'Yehay moonach' - גבי חנוני נמי יהא מונח

Summary: In a case where the payer is negligent, there is no concept of יהא מונח; rather he must pay all the demanding parties (according to ר"ע).

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ולא

And you did not tell me; 'give it to him in the presence of witnesses' - ולא אמרת לי הב ליה בסהדי

Summary: If an agent receives instruction, even if the order was reversed, he is to understand on his own to do it in the proper order. However an agent need not anticipate something which was not mentioned at all.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה מפני

Why did the תורה say, etc.- מפני מה אמרה תורה כולי

Summary: רבה asked that either a מוב"מ should be exempt from a שבועה for he has a מיגו of כוה"כ or we should derive from מוב"מ that there is no rule of מיגו. A כוה"כ is פטור משבועה based on the פסוק of כי הוא זה.

[View / Print]