102b bottom
Acc to the 2nd ans of the gemoro that an anpilio of leather is a real shoe. Then why doesn't the mishna in shekolim - liflog velisni bedidoh.
You can't go in to be torem with a anpilio, and eyn tzorich lomar that you can't go in with anpilio of leather, because you can't go into har habayis with shoes.
(And you cant even answer like tosafos does, in d,h elo, because there it's usual to walk around the house like that, not here in the mikdosh)
Avrumi Hersh, London england
It seems to me that it would be rather strange to have the 1) It seems to me that it would be rather strange to have the Mishnah (Shekalim 3:2) mention only two types of Anpiliyo and not mention Min'al and Sandal. As far as the suspicion that he is hiding the money goes, there is no difference between the Anpiliyo of fabric and the Anpiliyo of leather. The only difference between them is that for the leather Anpiliyo, even without the problem of suspicion one may not enter with them, but rather because of the prohibition of leather shoes in the Beis ha'Mikdash, as Rashi (DH v'Ein Tzarich) writes. It seems more logical to tell us this latter Din when referring to Min'al and Sandal, which are presumably more common items of footwear. Especially as our text in the Mishnah in Shekalim does not have Anpiliyo at all, it seems a Chidush to suggest that it should have it twice. (See Mesores ha'Shas here (#5) who says that what the Gemara cites here is not the Mishnah, but in fact a Beraisa.)
2) We can answer like Tosfos (DH Ela), in as much as Tosfos writes "Nakat Tana Davar ha'Hoveh." Since it is frequent to walk around with a Min'al and a Sandal, it is therefore necessary for us to be taught about a practical and commonplace possibility, since people might otherwise think that it is permitted to enter the Azarah wearing a Min'al or Sandal.
3) Rabeinu Tam also says that the Mishnah mentions common cases. See Tosfos (Shabbos 2a, DH Yetzi'os) who asks why Maseches Shabbos starts with the Melachah of carrying in and out from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and vice versa, and does not teach the Melachah of Hotza'ah after the Mishnah on Shabbos 73a which lists the 39 Melachos. Rabeinu Tam answers that the Shas teaches frequent Halachos first.
This is a similar idea to what Tosfos writes here, that "Nakat Tana Davar ha'Hoveh. The Mishnah discusses usual scenarios so we would not expect the Mishnah to focus only on Anpiliyo.
4) I heard a better answer than what I wrote above. The answer is that the Gemara says only "Liflog v'Lisni b'Didah" when the Gemara is asking that we should make a distinction which would give us a different Din. For example, the Gemara below on 103a asks, "Liflog b'Didah," and we would say that only a Sandal covered with leather is acceptable for Chalitzah, but if it is not covered with leather it is not considered a shoe for Chalitzah. But with the "Liflog" that is being suggested here on 102b, there is no difference in Din between the fabric Anpiliyo and the leather Anpiliyo; with neither of them may one enter the Azarah.
5) The idea behind "Liflog v'Lisni b'Didah" is, "Why do you have to make a distinction between the first item and the second item in order to find a different Din? One could find a different Din in the first item itself!" That is, why do you need to jump far off to find a different Din if you can find this difference very nearby.
6) "Liflog v'Lisni b'Didah" and "Ein Tzarich Lomar" are not the same idea. "Liflog" means that one makes a distinction between different Dinim, while "Ein Tzarich Lomar" is the same Din.
7) I think that if one checks out this rule with the other examples in Yevamos of "Liflog," it will be consistent. See above on 19a, 81a, 82a, and later on 112b.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom