PAST CYCLE DEDICATION

CHULIN 4 (28 Sivan) - Dedicated in memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev (ben Rav Avrohom Tzvi) Gustman, zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Netzach Yisrael-Ramailes (Vilna-Brooklyn-Yerushalayim), author of "Kuntresei Shi'urim" and renowned Dayan in pre-war and post-war Vilna, on his 20th Yahrzeit. Dedicated by Harav Avraham Feldman and Michael Starr of Yerushalayim, Dr. Yehoshua Daniel of Efrat, and Rabbi Eliezer Stern of New York, who merited to study under the Rosh Yeshiva zt"l in Yerushalayim.

1)

TOSFOS DH DAKURYA

úåñ' ã"ä ã÷åøéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos translates the word 'Dakurya').

ñì ...

(a)

Clarification: A basket ...

ëîå ã÷åøéà ãôø÷ äùåëø àú äôåòìéí (á"î ãó ôã.) åãîôðéï (ùáú ÷ëæ.)

(b)

Precedent: Like 'Kuryah' in Perek ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, 84a) and in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, 127a.).

2)

TOSFOS DH MACHNIS IZMAL BI'ZECHARIM

úåñ' ã"ä îëðéñ àéæîì áæëøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which Simanim the Gemara includes and which it doesn't).

ñéîðé ùîòúúà ãøá îðùä ãäê îëéìúàï äï; äê ã'îëðéñ úçú ëðôéå'; åì÷îï áôø÷ ùðé (ãó ìà.) 'àéæîì ùàéï ìå ÷øðéí'; åáôø÷ àìå èøôåú (ì÷îï ãó ðà.) 'äðäå ãéëøé ãâðáé âðáé, àéï çåùùéï ìøéñå÷ àáøéí'.

(a)

Clarification: These are 'Simanim' of the sayings of Rav Menasheh in this Masechta. The current case of 'Machnis Tachas Kenafav'; that of the second Perek (31a) 'a Knife that does not have corners' (with sharp edges); and that of Perek Eilu T'reifos (51.) 'Those rams that thieves stole, we are not worried about their limbs being crushed'.

îéäå âí áî÷åîåú àçøéí éù, ëãàùëçðà áôø÷ á' ãéáîåú (ãó ëä.) ãàîø øá îðùä 'âæìï ããáøéäí ëùø ìòãåú àùä'; åáôø÷ îé ùäçùéê (ùáú ÷ðå.) 'àîø øá îðùä 'çãà ÷îé çãà, úøé ÷îé úøé, ùôéø ãîé'.

(b)

Observation: There are however, other statements that he made (in other Masechtos), like we find in the second Perek of Yevamos (25a) 'A Gazlan mi'de'Rabbanan is Kasher by the testimony of a woman', and in Perek Mi she'Hichshich (Shabbos, 156a), where Rav Menasheh said (in connection with placing measures of animal fodder in front of animals on Shabbos) that 'One in front of one, and two in front of two, is in order'.

3)

TOSFOS DH MATZAS KUTI MUTERES

úåñ' ã"ä îöú ëåúé îåúøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies as to why this Matzah is not forbidden a. because of Chazal's decree forbidding Kuti bread, and b. because perhaps he did not guard the Matzah 'le'Shem Matzas Mitzvah').

åà"ú, åäìà âæøå òì ôúï, ìôé ùäéå îáèìéï áðéï áéú äî÷ãù áéîé òæøà, ëãàîøé' áôéø÷éï ãø"à (ô' ìç)?

(a)

Question: But did Chazal not decree on their bread, because they stopped the building of the Beis-Hamikdash in the time of Ezra (as we learned in Pirkei de'Rebbi Eliezer [Perek 38])?

åìéëà ìîéîø ãäééðå áëåúéí øàùåðéí, ãëúéá áäí "åàú àìäéäí äéå òåáãéí"?

(b)

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that this decree was restricted to the Kutim of that time only, about whom the Pasuk writes "Their gods they continued to worship" ...

ãäà ÷àîø äúí 'îëàï àîø ø"à, "ëì äàåëì ôú ëåúé ëàéìå àåëì áùø çæéø".

(c)

Refutation #1: ... since the Gemara says there 'From here Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates that 'Whoever eats the bread of a Kuti, it is as if he has eaten the meat of a Chazir!'

åúðéðà ðîé ì÷îï (ãó éâ.) 'ùçéèú öãå÷é ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, ôúå ôú ëåúé'?

(d)

Refutation #2: And we also learned a Beraisa later (on 13a) that states that the Shechitah of a Tzedoki is for Avodas-Kochavim; his bread is therefore Pas Kuti'?

åàåîø ø"ú, ãîééøé äëà áòéñä ãéùøàì ùòùä äëåúé îîðä îöä.

(e)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore establishes our Sugya by a dough belonging to a Yisrael from which a Kuti baked bread.

åà"ú, åäéàê éåöà áä, åùîà äåà ìà ùîø ìùí îöä, ãäà çùéãé à"ìôðé òåø ìà úúï îëùåì"?

(f)

Question: How can one then be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah with it? Seeing as Kutim are not particular about the La'av of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol", we ought to suspect that perhaps he did not guard the Matzah for the sake of the Mitzvah of Matzah?

åé"ì, ëâåï ùìà àëì äëåúé îöä àçøú ëì äìéìä.

(g)

Answer: It speaks where the Kuti himself did not eat any other Matzah during the entire Seider-night.

4)

TOSFOS DH IKA BEINAIHU DE'LO KESIVA VE'ACHZIKU BAH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àéëà áéðééäå ãìà ëúéáà åàçæé÷å áä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara restricts itself to the case of 'Lo Kesiva ve'Achziku bah').

áô"÷ ãâéèéï (ãó é.) îåëç ãëúéáà åìà àçæé÷å áä ðîé àéëà áéðééäå, ãìú"÷ îäðé, åìøùá"â ìà îäðé.

(a)

Implied Question: It is clear from the Gemara in the first Perek of Gitin (10a.) that they also argue over Mitzvos which are written but which they did not adopt, where one can rely on them according to the Tana Kama but not according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

åäëà ìà ð÷è àìà 'ìà ëúéáà åàçæé÷å áä', îùåí ãà'ùçéèú ëåúé áòé ìàúåéé úðàé.

(b)

Anwer #1: ... and the reason that the Gemara specifically Mitzvos that are not written but which they adopted is because it is citing a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to the Shechitah of a Kuti.

à"ð, ãìà àúà ìùðåéé àìà îä ùä÷ùä 'àí äçæé÷å áä îáòé ìéä'. åùí ôéøùðå.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, because it is only coming to answer the Kashya 'Im Hichziku bah Miba'i leih?'

4b----------------------------------------4b

5)

TOSFOS DH MUTAR MIYAD MIPNEI SHE'HEIN MACHLIFIN

úåñ' ã"ä îåúø îéã îôðé ùäï îçìéôéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the implications of the Heter of Machlifin, and whether there is an Isur de'Rabanan on it).

ôéøåù, îåúø áäðàä ìîåëøå àå ìäàëéìå ìôåòìéí òåáãé ëåëáéí àå ìëìáéí; àáì ìéùøàì àñåø áàëéìä, ãâæøå òì ôúï ùì òåáãé ëåëáéí.

(a)

Explanation #1: This means that it is Mutar be'Hana'ah, to sell it or to feed it to one's gentile workers or to dogs . One is not however, permitted to feed it to a Yisrael, since the Chachamim decreed on Pas Akum (Nochri bread).

à"ð, ëãôéøù ø"ú - ãááö÷ àééøé, ãîåúø áàëéìä.

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is speaking (not about bread, but) about dough, as Rabeinu Tam explained, which is permitted (See Maharam).

åäùúà à"ù, ãìà ú÷ùé äéëé ñáøåä ãàúéà ëøáé éäåãä, äà àéú ìéä áô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëç:) ã'çîõ ùì òåáã ëåëáéí ùòáø òìéå äôñç àñåø áäðàä'?

(c)

Question: With this explanation, we can also understand how the Gemara can possibly think that the author is Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as he holds in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 28:) that the Chametz of Nochrim that was available on Pesach is Asur be'Hana'ah?

àìà ááö÷ àééøé, åîçìôé ááö÷ ùì òåáãé ëåëáéí, ùìùå àçø äôñç.

(d)

Answer (Part 1): ... Therefore it must be speaking by dough, and they exchange it with the dough of Nochrim, which the latter kneaded after Pesach.

å'îåúø îéã' ã÷àîø - äééðå ëùéòåø ìéùä.

(e)

Answer (Part 2): And 'Mutar Miyad' that the Tana says means after the time it takes to knead a dough.

åîä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùîøåéçéï, ãìãéãï îéäà ùøé, ãàéï úåôñ àú ãîéå; ããå÷à ìãéãéä àñåø, ùáà ìå îçîú çîõ áôñç.

(f)

Advantage #1: According to Rashi, what we gain with this explanation is that we at least, are allowed to eat it, that the Isur is not transferred. In other words, the owner (the Over Aveirah), who receives the Chametz because of Chametz of Pesach, is forbidden to eat it (but others are not).

åðøàä ùîøåéçéï ðîé ìâáé ãéãäå, ìîàé ãñ"ã äùúà ãäåé ãàåøééúà, ãáçìéôéï ìà àñåø àìà îãøáðï ...

(g)

Advantage #2: It seems however, that we also gain even with regard to the owner, according to the current theory that we are talking about an Isur mi'd'Oraysa, because once he exchanges it, the Isur turns into a de'Rabbanan ...

ëîå ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ áò"æ áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ðã:) âáé "ëé çøí äåà" åãøéù "äåà", 'ìîòåèé òøìä åëìàé äëøí, ùàí îëøí å÷ãù áãîéäí î÷åãùú'. åôé' á÷åðèøñ ããå÷à á÷ãåùé àùä, àáì áùàø çìéôéï àñåø îãøáðï.

1.

Source: ... like Rashi himself explains in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 54b) in connection with the Pasuk "ki Cherem Hu", from which we extrapolate "Hu", 'to exclude Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem', which if one sold and betrothed a woman with the proceeds, she is Mekudeshes'. And Rashi explains there that the Heter is restricted to Kidushei Ishah, but as far as other Chalipin is concerned, it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

åðøàä ùôùåè ìå ìøù"é ãàñåø îãøáðï îèòí ùôéøù ëàï, ãà"ë, îöéðå ãîéí ìçîõ áôñç.

2.

Reason #1: It seems that Rashi considers Chalipin Asur mi'de'Rabbanan - for the reason that he presents here - because otherwise, it would emerge that Chametz on Pesach has a value.

åàéï æä ãéå÷à, ãàôéìå éäéå äãîéí îåúøéï ëùîëøï, î"î ëéåï ãìëúçìä àñåø ìîëåø, ìàå áø ãîéí äåà.

3.

Refutation: This is not a good proof however, since, even if the proceeds would be permitted once the Chametz is sold, nevertheless, seeing as Lechatchilah selling it is prohibited, it will still be considered as having no value.

åîéäå ðøàä ùéù ìàñåø îãøáðï, ãáðãøéí ôø÷ äùåúôéï (ãó îæ:) áòé øîé áø çîà '÷åðí ôéøåú äììå òì ôìåðé, îäå áçìéôéï?

4.

Reason #2 (Part 1): It appears however, that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, from the Gemara in Perek ha'Shutfin (Nedarim 47b) where Rami bar Chama asks what the Din will be regarding the Chalipin of fruit that Reuven forbade with a Konem on Shimon.

ú"ù, äî÷ãù áòøìä ... , îëøï å÷ãù áãîéäï î÷åãùú' ù"î, ãçìéôé àéñåøé äðàä îåúøéï? åãçé, 'ãìîà ìëúçìä äåà ãìà, äà ãéòáã òáã'.

5.

Reason #2 (Part 2): The Gemara tries to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Mekadesh be'Orlah ... Machran ve'Kidesh bi'Demeihen Mutarin', that Chalipei Isurei Hana'ah are permitted. But it retorts that 'Perhaps Lechatchilah they are forbidden, and it is only Bedieved that the exchange is permitted ...

åîéäå, àò"â ãáùàø çìéôéï àñåø, áàùä ùøé îùåí ôøéä åøáéä. à"ð, ìà àñøå àìà ëâåï ôéøåú åëìéí, ùäåà ãáø äðéëø åðøàä.

6.

Reason #2 (Part 3): However, even though other Chalipin are forbidden, by Eishes Ish it is permitted either on account of the Mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivyah or because they confined the Isur to objects like fruit and vessels, which are recognizable and visible (See Maharam).

åà"ú, îàé ôøéê áøéù ôø÷ áúøà ãò"æ (ãó ñá.) âáé 'äùåëø äôåòì ìòùåú òîå ééï ðñê, ùëøå àñåø. î"è, àéìéîà îùåí ãééï ðñê àñåø áäðàä ùëøå ðîé àñåø, åäøé òøìä åëìàé äëøí ãàñåø áäðàä, åúðï 'îëøí å÷ãù áãîéäí î÷åãùú'?

(h)

Question (Part 1): What does the Gemara ask at the beginning of the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 62.) regarding someone who hires a laborer to work with him in Yayin Nesech, whose wages are forbidden. And the Gemara rejects the suggestion that, since Yayin Nesech is Asur, so too are the wages of Yayin Nesech Asur, by citing (the Beraisa that we just discussed) regarding Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, which are Asur be'Hana'ah, yet the Tana rules 'Machrah ve'Kidesh bi'Demeihen, Mekudeshes'.

åîàé ÷ùéà, äà ìëúçìä àñåø ìéäðåú?

(i)

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya, seeing as Lechatchilah it is forbidden to benefit from the sale (as we just explained)?

åé"ì, ãîùîò ìéä ùëøå àñåø âí ìàçøéí, ëîå ééï ðñê òöîå. åìäëé ôøéê ùôéø - ãàé àñåø âí ìàçøéí ëîå ééï ðñê, àîàé î÷åãùú, ëéåï ãâí äéà àñåøä ìéäðåú?

(j)

Answer: S'charo Asur' implies that it is forbidden to others as well, like the Yayin Nesech itself. Which is why the Gemara asks, in that case, why is the Kidushin valid, seeing as she too, is forbidden to benefit from it?

åðäé ãàîøéðï áøéù ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëà:) ã'äî÷ãù áùòåú ãøáðï åçîõ ãøáðï, ãçåùùéï ì÷ãåùéï'?

(k)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara rules at the beginning of 'Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 21b) that someone who betroths a woman during the period of time when Chametz is Asur mi'de'Rabanan, with Chametz de'Rabanan, we suspect that she is Mekudeshes (so why is it not valid in the previous case too)?

î"î, î÷åãùú âîåøä ìà äåéà, ãàí áà àçø å÷ãùä, çåùùéï ì÷éãåùé ùðéäí.

(l)

Answer: She is not one hundred per cent Mekudeshes (only le'Chumra), inasmuch as if another man betroths her, she will require a Get from both of them

6)

TOSFOS DH SHE'MEISU ECHAV MACHMAS MILAH

úåñ' ã"ä ùîúå àçéå îçîú îéìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies the case about which the Gemara is speaking.)

ùðéîåìå ëùäï âãåìéí åîúå.

(a)

Clarification: The Tana must be speaking where they performed the Milah when they were already Gedolim and died.

ãàé áùîéðé, ãìîà îùåí ãìà ðáìò áäí äãí, ëãàîø áîñëú ùáú (ãó ÷ìã.).

(b)

Refuted Explanation #1: ... because if it speaks on the eighth day, perhaps they died because the blood had not yet become absorbed, as the Gemara explains in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (134a).

à"ð, àôéìå áùîéðé åëâåï ùäöéöå áäï åøàå ùðáìò áäï ãîï.

(c)

Refuted Explanation #2: Alternatively, they may even have performed it on the eighth day, and it speaks where they looked and ascertained that the blood had been absorbed.

7)

TOSFOS DH ELA MUMAR LE'OSO DAVAR

úåñ' ã"ä àìà îåîø ìàåúå ãáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it must be speaking about a Mumar le'Te'avon).

åìúéàáåï, ãàé ìäëòéñ ôùéèà ãôñåìä.

(a)

Clarification: It is speaking about a Mumar le'Te'avon (for his own benefit), because by a Mumar le'Hach'is (to anger Hash-m) it would be obvious that the Shechitah is Pasul.

8)

TOSFOS DH MUMAR LA'AVODAS-KOCHAVIM

úåñ' ã"ä îåîø ìòáåãú ëåëáéí îåúø ìàëåì îùçéèúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Gemara with the Gemara in Hori'os).

úéîä, ãáôø÷ áúøà ãäåøéåú (ãó éà.) ôìéâé áä øá àçà åøáéðà áîåîø ìäëòéñ, àé äåé öãå÷é àå îåîø; àáì òåáã òáåãú ëåëáéí ìëåìé òìîà äåé öãå÷é, åì÷îï (ãó éâ.) úðé 'ùçéèú öãå÷é ìòáåãú ëåëáé'?

(a)

Question: In the last Perek of Hori'os (11a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over a Mumar le'Hach'is, as to whether he is a Tzedoki or a Mumar; but they both agree that a Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim is a Tzedoki; and later (on Daf 13.) the Gemara cites a Beraisa that the Shechitah of a Tzedoki is for Avodas-Kochavim?

é"ì, ãöãå÷é ãì÷îï äééðå ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, ùòåáã ìëåëáéí úîéã.

(b)

Answer: The Tzedoki that the Tana there is talking about is one who constantly serves Avodah-Zarah.