12th Cycle Dedication

ERCHIN 3 - has been sponsored by Joshua Rebbi Danziger of Cliffside Park, New Jersey.

1)

TOSFOS DH EIM ME'AKVIN TINOKOS MI'LITKO'A

úåñ' ã"ä àéï îòëáéï úéðå÷åú îìú÷åò

(Summary: Tosfos, citing the Gemara in Rosh ha'Shanah, resolves the discrepancy in the Mishnah itself, and elaborates.)

áôø÷ ã' ãø"ä (ãó ìâ.) î÷ùä äñôø îã÷úðé 'àéï îòëáéï' ,äà ìëúçéìä (îòëáéï) ìà àîøéðï ìäå 'æéìå ú÷òå' ] ,åäãø [úðé 'àáì îúòñ÷éï áäï ùéìîãå àôé' áùáú' ...

(a)

Question: In the fourth Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 33a) the Gemara asks that the initial wording of the Beraisa 'Ein Me'akvin' implies that Lechatchilah we do not instruct the children to 'Go and blow', and then the Tana says 'But one blows with them even on Shabbos'? ...

åîùðé 'ëàï á÷èï ùäâéò ìçéðåê, ëàï á÷èï ùìà äâéò ìçéðåê' - ëìåîø á÷èï ùäâéò ìçéðåê îúòñ÷éï.

(b)

Answer: And it answers 'One speaks by a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch, the other, by one who hasn't - in other words, one blows with a child who has reached the age of Chinuch (See Shitah Mekubetzes 12).

åà"ú, ôùéèà ãàéï îòëáéï ,ìî"ã áéáîåú ôø÷ çøù (ãó ÷éã.) '÷èï àåëì ðáéìåú àéï á"ã îöååéï ìäôøéùå' ?

(c)

Question: Is it not obvious, according to the opinion in Perek Cheresh (Yevamos, Daf 114a) 'Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho', that we do not stop a child from blowing?

åé"ì, ëâåï ùäâéò ìçéðåê ùîéøú ùáú àáì ìà äâéò ìçéðåê ú÷éòú ùåôø- åäåé ÷öú çéãåù.

(d)

Answer: It speaks where he has reached the age of Chinuch regarding Shabbos but not regarding Teki'as Shofar - so there is a bit of a Chidush.

2)

TOSFOS DH L'ASUYEI NASHIM

úåñ' ã"ä ìàúåéé ðùéí

(Summary: Tosfos cites the B'hag who disagrees with Rashi, and clarifies the Tosefta from which he cites his proof and subsequently the Sugya.)

ùçééáåú áî÷øà îâéìä åëùøéí ì÷øåú åìäåöéà æëøéí éãé çåáúï )ì"ä( .

(a)

Explanation #1: Who are Chayav to read the Megilah and who are Kasher to read for men and to render them Yotzei (Rashi's wording).

àáì áä"â ìà ôñ÷ äëé...

(b)

Explanation #2: The B'hag however, does not rule like that ...

åîáéàéï øàéä îï äúåñôúà, åæä ìùåðå ' -äëì çééáéï áî÷øà îâéìä... èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ çééáéï åàéï îåöéàéï äøáéí éãé çåáúï...

(c)

Tosefta: And he supports this from the Tosefta which states 'Everyone is Chayav to read the Megilah ... A Tumtum and an Androginus are Chayav, but they cannot render the community Yotzei ...

'àðãøåâéðåñ îåöéà îéðå åàéï îåöéà àú ùàéðå îéðå; èåîèåí àéðå îåöéà ìà àú îéðå åìà àú ùàéðå îéðå.

1.

Tosefta (cont.): 'An Androginus can render his own species Yotzei; A Tumtum can render neither his own species not those not of his species Yotzei.

'îé ùçöéå òáã åçöéå áï çåøéï àéðå îåöéà ìà àú îéðå åìà àú ùàéðå îéðå ...

2.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Someone who is half Eved and half ben-Chorin can render neither his own species not those not of his species Yotzei.

'ðùéí åòáãéí å÷èðéí ôèåøéï î÷øéàú îâéìä' )òã ëàï ìùåï äúåñôúà( ...

3.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Women, Avadim and Ketanim are Patur from reading the Megilah' (Up to here is the wording of the Tosefta) ...

åääìëåú âãåìåú äåñéôå- 'àìà ùçééáéï áùîéòä ìôé ùäëì äéå áñô÷ ìäùîéã åìäøåâ åìàáã...

(d)

Proof: And the Halachos Gedolos adds - 'They are however, Chayav to hear it, since everyone was included in the Safek of being wiped out, killed and destroyed ...

'ø' éäåùò äåä îëðñ ëì àðùé áéúå å÷åøà ìôðéäí; øáé éåðä àáåä ãøáé îðçí äéä îúëåéï ì÷øåúä ìôðé ðùéí ùááéúå...

1.

Proof (cont.): 'Rebbi Yehoshua would gather all the members of his household and Lein the Megilah for them; Rebbi Yonah the father of Rebbi Menachem would have in mind to Lein (the Megilah) for all the women in his house ...

'ùäëì äéå áñô÷- åäëì çééáéï áùîéòä' )òã ëàï ìùåï äìëåú âãåìåú( .

2.

Reason: Because everyone was included in the Safek - and everyone is therefore Chayav to hear it (up to here is the wording of the Halachos Gedolos).

ìëê öøéê ìôøù áëàï ãàéï äðùéí îåöéàéï àìà ðùéí, àáì àðùéí ìà...

(e)

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, we must explain here that women can be Motzi women, but not men ...

å'äëì çééáéï áî÷øà îâéìä ... ìàéúåéé ðùéí' -[ùîåöéàåú ðùéí àçøåú].

1.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And 'Everyone is Chayav to read the Megulah ... to include women' - means that they can be Motzi other women.

åäåä îöé ìîéîø ìàéúåéé ÷èï -àìéáà ãøáé éäåãä ãîëùéø á÷èï áôø÷ ùðé ãîâéìä (ãó éè:).

(f)

Alternative Inference: Alternatively, the Gemara could have said that it comes to include a Katan - according to Rebbi Yehudah who considers him eligible in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 19b).

3)

TOSFOS DH MEZAMNOS L'ATZMAN

úåñ' ã"ä îæîðåú ìòöîï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Dinim concerning women being Mezamen.)

ùìù ðùéí, åëï ùìùä òáãéí, àáì ùúé ðùéí àéï îöèøôéï (ìùðé) [òí] àðùéí ...

(a)

Clarification: Three women and similarly three Avadim, but two women cannot combine with men ...

ìôé ùéù áàðùéí ùàéï áðùéí åáòáãéí -ùàéï äðùéí àåîøåú 'áøéú' ,åòáãéí àéï àåîøéí 'òì àøõ ùäðçìú ìàáåúéðå' .

1.

Reason: Seeing as there are things that men say but not women and Avadim - in that women do not say 'B'ris', and Avadim 'al Eretz she'Hinchalto la'Avoseinu' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 16).

åö"ì ãøùåú äåà ìðùéí ìæîï, àáì çéåáà ìéëà.

(b)

Clarification (cont.): We are forced to say that women are permitted to be Mezamen, but are under no obligation to do so.

åúãò, îã÷à îééúé îéðéä ñééòúà ìî"ã áô' ùìùä ùàëìå (áøëåú îä:) ã'ùðéí àí øöå ìæîï, îæîðéï' ,îùåí ãîàä ðùéí ëúøé âáøé...

(c)

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that the Gemara proves from it the opinion in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu' (B'rachos, Daf 45b) that if two people want to be Mezamen, they may, since a hundred women are equivalent to two men ...

åàí äéå çééáåú, à"ë ÷ùéà ìéä ãäà 'øöå ìæîï' ÷àîø.

1.

Proof (cont.): And if they would be Chayav, there would be a Kashya on him, since it says 'Im Ratzu'.

åòì æä ñîëå ðùéí ùìðå ùàéðï îæîðåú.

(d)

Conclusion: And it is on this that our women rely nowadays, when they are not Mezamen.

4)

TOSFOS DH L'ASUYEI KATAN HA'YODE'A L'MI MEVORCHIN U'CHEDE'RAV NACHMAN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìàúåéé ÷èï äéåãò ìîé îáøëéï åëãøá ðçîï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites the Gemara's ruling and the ultimate Halachah.)

åàîø ðîé ááøëåú (ãó îç.) 'åìéú äìëúà ëëì äðé ùîòúà àìà ëãøá ðçîï ...' ...

(a)

Ruling #1: The Gemara also says in B'rachos (Daf 48a) that 'The Halachah is not like all of these statements, but like Rav Nachman ... ' ...

åàôéìå äëé ìà ÷é"ì ëååúéä àìà ëãàîø øáé éåñé áéøåùìîé 'ëîä æéîðéï àëìéú òí àáà çìôúà åòí çáéáé, åìà æîðéï òìé òã ùäáàúé á' ùòøåú'.

(b)

Ruling #2: Nevertheless, we do not Pasken like him, only like Rebbi Yossi in the Yerushalmi (and in the Bereishis Rabah, Parshas Mikeitz - Rosh), who attests to the many times that he ate with his father (Aba Chalafta) and his uncle, and that they never included him in the Mezuman until he grew two hairs.

5)

TOSFOS DH D'SANYA ISH KI YIY'HEY ZAV ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ãúðéà àéù ëé éäéä æá åâå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not rather cite the Mishnah in Nidah.)

åäà ãìà îééúé îúðéúéï ãéåöà ãåôï (ðãä îâ:) ãúðï 'úéðå÷ áï éåí àçã îèîà áæéáä' ...

(a)

Implies Question: The Gemara declines to cite the Mishnah in Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 43b), which states 'Tinok ben Yom Echad Metamei be'Zivah' ...

îùåí ùäáøééúà îôøù éåúø.

1.

Answer): Because the Beraisa is more explicit.

6)

TOSFOS DH LI'ME'UTEI KATAN MI'KAREIS

úåñ' ã"ä ìîòåèé ÷èï îëøú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Din by a Katan, and explains why we need a Pasuk to exclude him from Misah.)

ãäàé ÷øà áðëðñ ìî÷ãù èîà ëúéá, åîçééá ìéä ëøú, åìäëé ëúéá "àéù" -ìîòåèé ÷èï ãìàå áø òåðùéï äåà...

(a)

Clarification: Because this Pasuk is written in connection with someone who enters the Beis-ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah, and declares him Chayav Kareis, and it writes "Ish" to preclude a Katan who is not subject to punishment ...

àáì èîà äåà ìèîà àåëìéí åîù÷éï ëâãåì.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Although he is Tamei to render Tamei food and drink like a Gadol.

åéù ìúîåä, ìîä ìé ÷øà ìôåèøå, ëéåï ãìà îöéðå ÷èï ðòðù?

(b)

Question #1: Why do we need a Pasuk to exempt him (from Kareis), seeing as we never find a Katan who is subject to punishment?

åëï ÷ùä ôø÷ ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ðá:)" àéù ëé éðàó' ,"ôøè ì÷èï' ?'

(c)

Question #2: And the same Kashya can be asked in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 52b) - "Ish ki Yin'af", 'to preclude a Katan'?

åîéäå äúí é"ì ãîùåí ÷ìåï äàùä éúçééá, ãåîéà ãáäîä äðøáòú.

(d)

Answer #1: There however, one can answer that he ought to be Chayav due to the woman's disgrace, similar to an animal that is raped.

åùîà àéöèøéê -ãñã"à äåàéì åðúøáä ìèåîàä, éúçééá ëøú...

(e)

Answer #2: Perhaps the Pasuk is needed - because we would otherwise have thought that since he is included in the Tum'ah, he is also included in the Kareis ...

÷î"ì ãìà.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): It therefore teaches us that this is not the case (See footnote).

7)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'TZARU'A

úåñ' ã"ä åäöøåò

(Summary: Tosfos citing Rashi, clarifies the D'rashah and elaborates.)

îùîò öøåò àçøéðà ìøáåú àú äàùä...

(a)

Clarification: Implying another "Tzaru'a" to include a woman ...

'à"ë ìîä ðàîø "àéù" ìòðéï ùìîèä' " -àéù" ãîùîò åìà àùä, ìàå à'èîà éèîàðå ÷àé, ãäúí àôéìå àùä, àìà à'÷øà ãìúçú ÷àé ãîùúòé áôøéòä åôøéîä )ì"ä( .

1.

Clarification (cont.): 'Then why does the Torah write Ish"? regarding the issue mentioned later' - Ish doews not refer tom "Tamei Yetam'enu", which refers even to women, but to the Pasuk further on which talks about P'ri'ah u'P'rimah (letting one's hair grow and renting one's clothes [Rashi's wording]).

åàò"â ãáðâòé øàù åæ÷ï ëúéá (åé÷øà éâ) "àùä" ...

(b)

Implied Question: And even though in connection with the head and the beard (Vayikra 11) the Torah writes "Ishah" ...

ìà éìôéðï îéðä ,ãäúí àéöèøéê ãàò"â ùàéï øâéìåú ìöîç ùéòø áæ÷ï, äàùä îèîàä.

(c)

Answer: We cannot learn from there, because it is needed there to teach us that a woman is subject to Tum'ah there even though it is unusual for her to grow a beard.

åéù ìä÷ùåú, àîàé ìà ðô÷à ìï àùä î"àãí" ,ãîùîò àùä åîùîò ÷èï ãëúéá (áîãáø ìà) "åðôù àãí" ,åëéåï ãù÷åìéí äï åéáàå ùðéäí?

(d)

Question: Why do we not learn Ishah from the word "Adam", which implies both a woman and a Katan - when it writes (in Bamidbar 31) "ve'Nefesh Adam"; so since they are equal, why not learn them both?

åé"ì, ãñã"à îãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìøáåéé àùä áðâòé (÷èï) [æ÷ï], îëìì ãùàø ðâòéí ìéëà ìèîàåú àùä àí ìà îï äôñå÷.

(e)

Answer: We would have thought that, since we need a Pasuk to include a woman regarding the Nega'im of a beard, we would have thought that she is not subject to any other Nega'im unless the Pasuk specifically says so.

å÷ùä, äåä ìéä ìøáåéé àùä [î"àãí"] å"àéù" ìîòåèé ÷èï îôøéòä åôøéîä, å"äöøåò" ìøáåú ÷èï ìèåîàä?

(f)

Question: We should then have included Ishah from "Adam", whereas "Ish" comes to preclude a Katan from P'ri'ah and P'rimah, and "ha'Tzaru'a" will include him in the realm of Tum'ah?

åé"ì, ãîñúáøà ìîòåèé ôøéòä åôøéîä áàùä, ùâðàé äåà æä.

(g)

Answer: It is logical to preclude a woman from P'ri'ah and P'rimah, since it is demeaning for her.

8)

TOSFOS DH HA'KOL RO'IN HA'KOL KESHERIN LIR'OS

úåñ' ã"ä äëì øåàéï äëì ëùøéï ìøàåú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the source.)

çãà äåà åìàå âáé äããé úðéà.

(a)

Clarification: They are one and the same, but they are not learned together

9)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'AMAR MAR

úåñ' ã"ä åäàîø îø

(Summary: Tosfos cites the source.)

áôø÷ ÷îà ãùáåòåú (ãó å.).

(a)

Source: In the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 6a).

10)

TOSFOS DH D'MASB'RI LEIH V'SAVAR

úåñ' ã"ä ãîñáøé ìéä åñáø

(Summary: Tosfos, citing Rashi, clarifies the Gemara's answer and elaborates.)

äìëåú ðâòéí ùàéðå á÷é ;äåìê ú"ç åøåàä òîå ...

(a)

Clarification: The Dinim of Nega'im, with which he is not conversant; so he takes a Talmid-Chacham to inspect (the Nega) together with him ...

äåà àåîø 'èîà' ,åäåà àåîø 'èîà' ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Who announces 'Tamei', and he (the Kohen) says 'Tamei' after him

ùäèåîàä åäèäøä úìåéä áàîéøú ëäï- åäëé úðéà ìéä áú"ë )ì"ä(

2.

Reason: Because Tum'ah and Taharah depend on the declaration of the Kohen - as we learned in the Toras Kohanim (Rashi's wording).

åäúí áú"ë àéúøáå éùøàì ,îãëúéá "àå àì àçã îáðéå äëäðéí" .

3.

Clarification (concl.): There in the Toras Kohanim it learns a Yisrael from the Pasuk "O el Achad mi'Banav ha'Kohanim".

åîñ÷éðï äúí 'îàçø ùñåôå ìøáåú éùøàì, ìîàé äìëúà ëúéá "ëäï" ?

(b)

Question: And it concludes there 'Since in the end we are going to include a Yisrael, why does it mention "Kohen"?

ùàéï èåîàä åèäøä àìà îôé ëäï, ùàôé' ëäï ùåèä øåàä ðâòéí.

(c)

Answer #1: Because Tum'ah and Taharah must come from the mouth of the Kohen, and even if he is a fool who is inspecting Nega'im.

àò"â ãîñáøé ìéä åñáø ...

(d)

Implied Question: And even though he must understand when it is explained to him ...

î÷øé ìéä 'ëäï ùåèä' ùàéðå á÷é áôðé òöîå.

1.

Answer: It refers to him as a 'Kohen Shoteh', since he is not an expert under his own steam.

åòé"ì, ã'îñáøé ìéä åñáø' ãäëà ìàå à'ëäï ÷àé àìà à'éùøàì çëí ã÷àé âáéä îñáøé ìéä åñáø.

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, 'de'Masmb'ri leih ve'Savar' refers, not to the Kohen, but to the Yisrael Talmid-Chacham who is standing beside him, who understands when it is explained to him.

åà"ú, ôùéèà, îä ìé îìîãéï îàúîåì ìîìîãéï àåúå äéåí?

(f)

Question: Why is it not obvious? What difference does it make whether he knew it yesterday or it was taught to him today?

åé"ì, ãàò"â ùàéðå á÷é àìà áàåúå ðâò ãîñáøé ìéä, ëùø ìøàåú.

(g)

Answer: Even though he is only conversant with this one Nega that is being explained to him, he is Kasher to inspect it.

11)

TOSFOS DH L'KADESH

úåñ' ã"ä ì÷ãù

(Summary: Tosfos defines Kidush and cites the source of the Machlokes.)

ìòøá îéí çééí áàôø çèàú.

(a)

Clarification: To mix the spring-water with the ashes of the 'Chatas'.

èòîééäå ãøáé éäåãä åøáðï îôøù áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà îâ.).

(b)

Clarification (cont.): The reasons of Rebbi Yehudqah and the Rabbanan are explained in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma, 43a).

12)

TOSFOS DH AREIL

úåñ' ã"ä òøì

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and explains why the Gemara cites Rebbi Elazer rather than a Beraisa.)

ùîúå àçéå îçîú îéìä ùäæä îîéîé çèàú òì äèîà, äæàúå ëùøä....

(a)

Clarification: Whose brothers died as a result of the Milah, who sprinkled some of the Mei Chatas on a person who is Tamei, his Haza'ah is Kasher ...

èòîà îôøù áéáîåú ôø÷ äòøì (ãó òá:) 'îéãé ãäåä à'èáåì éåí, ùôñåì áúøåîä åëùø áôøä.

(b)

Source: As the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 72b) - 'Similar to the Din of a T'vul-Yom, who is Pasul to eat T'rumah, but Kasher regarding the Din of Parah.

åîöé ìàéúåéé áøééúà ãúðéà äúí äëé áôéøåù ...

(c)

implied Question: The Gemara could in fact, have cited the Beraisa cited there explicitly ...

àìà ãø' àìòæø ùâåøä áôé ëì éåúø.

(d)

Answer: Only they were more familiar with the statement of Rebbi Elazar.

13)

TOSFOS DH T'REI

úåñ' ã"ä úøé

(Summary: Tosfos refers to the source.)

äëì ùåçèéï áô"÷ ãçåìéï (ãó á. åãó èå:).

(a)

Source: There are two 'ha'Kol Shochtin' - in the first Perek of VChukin - one on Daf 2a, the other, on Daf 15b.

14)

TOSFOS DH HA'KOL MA'ALIN

úåñ' ã"ä äëì îòìéï

(Summary: Tosfos refers to the source.)

áëúåáåú ô' áúøà (ãó ÷é:).

(a)

Source: In the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110b)

3b----------------------------------------3b

15)

TOSFOS DH L'ASUYEI AVADIM

úåñ' ã"ä ìàúåéé òáãéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains this in three different ways.)

ùàí éù ìå òáã ëðòðé îäåì ìîëåø åøåöä äòáã ùìà éîëøðå àìà áà"é.

(a)

Explanation #1: Inasmuch as that if one has an Eved Cana'ani who is Mahul to sell, and the Eved only wants to be sold in Eretz Yisrael (one forces the master to comply with his wishes - Rashi).

åáëúåáåú (ãó ÷é:) ôøù"é ùéëåì ìäòìåúå [ìäòáã òáøé áò"ë ùì òáã].

(b)

Explanation #2: In Kesuvos (Daf 110b) however , Rashi explains that the master can take his Eved Ivri to Eretz Yisrael against his will.

åø"é ôéøù ùäòáã éëåì ìëåó ìäòìåúå àå éôèøåäå.

(c)

Explanation #3: Whereas according to the Ri, the Eved can force his master to take him up to Eretz Yisrael or to set him free.

16)

TOSFOS DH L'ASUYEI EVED SHE'BARACH ME'CHUTZ L'ARETZ L'ARETZ

úåñ' ã"ä ìàúåéé òáã ùáøç îç"ì ìàøõ

(Summary: Tosfos explains this in three different ways.)

åîøéùà ìà ùîòé' ìé' ,ìîàï ãúðé 'òáãéí' -åàôéìå ìôé' øù"é ãáòáãéí ëðòðéí îééøé...

(a)

Implied Question: We cannot learn this from the Reisha, according to the text 'Avadim' - even according to Rashi (here) who establishes it by Avadim Cana'anim ...

ãøåöä ìîåëøå, ùàéðå îåöéàå îøùåúå.

(b)

Answer #1: Because he wants to sell him, whereas in the Seifa, he does not want to take him out of his domain (See Rashash).

à"ð, ãäåàéì åáøç, ðé÷ðñéä ìòáã åìà ðôèø.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, since the Eved ran away, we ought to penalize him and not set him free.

à"ð, ñ"ã ãøéùà ëâåï ùäøá äåìê úãéø áàøõ éùøàì áìàå äëé.

(d)

Answer #3: Or we may have thought that the Reisha speaks where the master anyway travels regularly to Eretz Yisrael.

17)

TOSFOS DH MI'NAVAH HA'YAFAH

úåñ' ã"ä îðåä äéôä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Seifa.)

ãç"ì ìðåä äøòä ãà"é, åàéï àùúå éëåìä ìòëá òìéå- åëï îà"é ìéøåùìéí )ì"ä(

(a)

Clarification: ... of Chutz la'Aretz to an ugly area in Eretz Yisrael, and his wife cannot stop him - and the same applies from the rest of Eretz Yisrael to Yerushlayim (Rashi's wording).

ãúðà øéùà 'äëì îòìéï' ,úðà ñéôà 'àéï äëì îåöéàéï' - äëé îôøù äúí áëúåáåú (âí æä ùí)

1.

Clarification (cont.): The Reisha states 'ha'Kol Ma'alin', the Seifa adds 'Ein ha'Kol Motzi'in' - so the Gemara explains there in Kesuvos (Ibid.).

åìéëà ìîéîø ìàúåéé òáãéí...

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara cannot explain that it comes to include Avadim ...

ãìéëà çéìå÷ áéï ùàø àøõ éùøàì ìéøåùìéí âáé òáãéí.

1.

Answer: Because there is no reason to differentiate between the rest of Eretz Yisrael and Yerushalayim with regard to Avadim.

18)

TOSFOS DH HA'KOL CHAYAVIN B'SUKAH

úåñ' ã"ä äëì çééáéï áñåëä

(Summary: Tosfos explains the sequence of the two sections in the Mishnah.)

òã äùúà ãøéù 'äëì' ìàúåéé îàé ...

(a)

Clarification: Until here, the Tana discussed what 'ha'Kol' comes to include ...

îäùúà ãøéù äðê ãúðà 'ëäðéí ìåéí åéùøàìéí' -å÷áòé 'ôùéèà ;åàé äðê ìà îéçééáé, îàï ìéçééá?

(b)

Clarification (cont.): From now on he discusses the cases which mention 'Kohanim, Levi'im ve'Yisre'elim' - in that it is obvious; because if they are not Chayav, who is?

19)

TOSFOS DH U'VENEI AVODAH NINHU

úåñ' ã"ä åáðé òáåãä ðéðäå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara.)

åàéï éëåìéï ìãåø àéù åàùúå áñåëä, ùàéï ðæ÷÷éï ìðùåúéäï, ãøîéà òìééäå òáåãú äøâì- àéîà ìà îçééáå )ì"ä(

(a)

Clarification: And they are not able to live in the Sukkah as man and wife, because, seeing as they are obligated to perform the Avodah, they are not permitted to be intimate - we would have thought that they are not Chayav (Sukkah [Rashi's wording]).

ãîèòí äåìëé ãøëéí ...

(b)

Implied Question: Because from the fact that they are travelers ...

ìéëà ìîéôèøéðäå àìà áùãåú, àáì ìà áìùëú áéú äîå÷ã åùàø î÷åîåú áäî"÷.

1.

Answer: They would only be exempt when they are in the fields, but not when they are in the chamber of the Beis ha'Mokad or in any other section of the Beis-h'Mikdadsh.

åä"ä ãîöé ìîéð÷è ðîé ìåéí äùåîøéí áë"à î÷åîåú áî÷ãù, ëãàéúà ô"÷ ãúîéã (ãó ëå.).

(c)

Observation #1: In fact, the Gemara could have mentioned the Levi'im, who guard the Mikdash in twenty-one locations, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Tamid (Daf 26a).

äëé )ðîé (àùëçðà ì÷îï âáé 'äëì çééáéï áú÷éòú ùåôø' ...

(d)

Observation #2: Similarly we find later, by 'Everyone is Chayav to blow the Shofar' ...

ãîöé ìîéîø 'ëäðéí åìåéí àéöèøéëà ìéä' ãäà îééúé ìéä ðîé ã'ìåéí âåàìéï ìòåìí åîåëøéï ìòåìí' ...

1.

Observation #2 (cont.): That it cold have explained that it needs to mention 'Kohanim and Levi'im', bearing in mind that the Beraisa quoted there states that 'The Levi'im (as well as the Kohanim) can always redeem their fields' ...

åìà ð÷è àìà ëäðéí.

2.

Observation #2 (concl.): Yet it only mentions Kohanim.

20)

TOSFOS DH KA'MASHMA LAN

úåñ' ã"ä ÷îùîò ìï

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara's chidush.)

[àò"â] ãìà àôùø ìäå ëòéï ãéøä, ëé äéëé ãàôùø ìäå, îéçééáé...

(a)

Clarification: Even though they cannot fulfil 'ke'Ein Dirah, there where they can, they are Chayav ...

åáòéãï òáåãä ôèéøé ùìà áòéãï òáåãä îéçééáé.

1.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, during the Avodah, they are Patur, but otherwise, they are Chayav.

21)

TOSFOS DH KOHANIM ISHT'RI L'HU KIL'AYIM B'IDAN AVODAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëäðéí àéùúøé ìäå ëìàéí áòéãï òáåãä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's hidush.)

ãàáðè ùì ëìàéí äéä ...

(a)

Clarification: Since the belt consisted ot Kil'ayim - seeing as the Torah writes "And the belt of Sheish"

ãëúéá "åàú äàáðè ùù" ,åîãùù ëúðà, "úëìú" ...'.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And seeing as "Sheish" is linen, "Techeiles" is wool ... '.

22)

TOSFOS DH HANI KOHANIM HO'IL

úåñ' ã"ä äðé ëäðéí äåàéì åàéùúøå ëìàéí ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the clarifies the statement in detail.

ä÷ùä äøá ø"é îàåøìééð"ù ðùéí ìà ìçééáå áëìàéí -äåàéì åìéúðäå "áâãéìéí úòùä ìê" ?

(a)

Question: The Ri from Orleans asks why women are subject to Kil'ayim - seeing as they are not subject to "Gedilim T'aseh lach" (Tzitzis)?

åéù ìåîø, 'äùåä äëúåá àùä ìàéù' ...

(b)

Answer: Because the Torah compares women to men ...

åäà ãàîø ôø÷ àìå òåáøéï (ôñçéí îâ:) 'åäðé ðùé äåàéì åìéúðäå á÷åí àëåì îöä, àéîà ááì úàëì çîõ ðîé ìéúðäå' ...

(c)

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara in 'Eilu Ovrin' (Pesachim, Daf 43b) states that 'Those women who are not subject to the positive Mitzvah of eating Matzah, ought not to be subject to the La'av of Chametz either ...

ñîéê òìä à'äà ãéìôé' "è"å" "è"å" îçâ äñåëåú, ãëúéá "äàæøç" ìäåöéà äðùéí.

(d)

Answer: It relies on the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Chamishah-Asar" "Chmishah-Asar" from the Yom-Tov of Sukkos

åà"ú, åðéîà ëéåï ãàéúðäå áìáéùú ùòèðæ, àéúðäå áâãéìéí?

(e)

Question: Why do we not say that, since they are subject to the La'av of Sha'atnez, they should also be subject to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis?

åé"ì, ãàãøáä, äå÷ùä ëì äúåøä ìúôéìéï.

(f)

Answer: Because, on the contrary, the whole Torah is compared to Tefilin (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15).

åà"ú, ãäëé ðîé ìùí áîöä äé÷ùà éúéøä ?

(g)

Question: But does the Gemara not also require an extra Hekesh by Matzah?

åúéøõ, ãàéëà ìîéîø äåàéì åàéúøáå ìàëéìú çîõ àéúøáå ðîé ìàëéìú îöä.

(h)

Answer: He (the Ri from Orleans) answers that, since they are included in the Mitzvah of eating Matzah, they are also included in the La'av of eating Chametz (See footnote).

23)

TOSFOS DH SHE'LO YEHEI DAVAR CHOTZETZ BEIN BIGDEI KEHUNAH LI'VESARO

úåñ' ã"ä ùìà éäà ãáø çåöõ áéï áâãé ëäåðä ìáùøå

(Summary: Tosfos gives the reason for the prohibition.)

åúôìéï òì áùøå áòéðï, ãëúéá (ùîåú éâ) "åäéä ìê ìàåú" ' ,åìà ìàçøéí ìàåú. '

(a)

Clarification: And Tefilin need to be on the skin, as the Torah writes "And it shall be for you a sign", 'but not a sign for others'.

24)

TOSFOS DH TZITZ MUNACH AL HA'METZACH U'MITZNEFES AL HA'ROSH V'EINAH MACHZEKES AD HA'METZACH ELA M'KOM HA'TEFILIN NIR'AH B'GOVAH HA'ROSH MAKOM SHE MO'ACH SHEL TINOK ROFEIS (l'SHON HA'KUNT'RES)

úåñ' ã"ä öéõ îåðç òì äîöç åîöðôú òì äøàù åàéðä îçæ÷ú òã äîöç àìà î÷åí äúôìéï ðøàä áâåáä äøàù î÷åí ùîåçå ùì úéðå÷ øåôñ ì"ä

(Summary: Tosfos explains how the Gemara takes for granted that Kohanim are always Chayav to wear Tefilin shel Rosh, and Tefilin shel Yad at least when the Avodah is not being performed.)

åìéëà ìîéîø àîàé ìà ÷àîø ëãìòéì ' -÷î"ì åðäé ãôèéøé áòéãï òáåãä ...

(a)

Implied Question: One cannot ask why the Gemara does not answer like it answers above - 'It teaches us that even though thy are Patur during the time of the Avodah ... ' ...

ãôùéèà ìéä ãçééáéï ìòåìí áúôìéï ùì øàù.

1.

Answer: Because the Gemara considers it obvious that the Kohen is always Chayav to wear Tefilin shel Rosh.

åìà áòé ìéä ìîéîø ãñ"ã ãìéôèøå îúôéìéï ùì éã ùìà áòéãï òáåãä...

(b)

Implied Question: Nor does it want to say that we thought to exempt the Kohen from Tefilin shel Yad when he is not doing the Avodah ...

ãôùéèà ìéä ãçééáéï.

1.

Answer: Since the Gemara considers it obvious that he is Chayav.

25)

TOSFOS DH SHEL YAD EINAH ME'AKEVES SHEL ROSH

úåñ' ã"ä ùì éã àéðä îòëáú ùì øàù

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in Menachos.)

åàò"â ãàîø áòìîà îðçåú (ãó ìå.) "åìèåèôåú áéï òéðéê" ' ,ëì æîï ùáéï òéðéê éäéå ùðéí' ...

(a)

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara elsewhere (in Menachos, Daf 36a) learns from the Pasuk "u'Letotafos bein Einecha" that as long as the Tefilin are 'between your eyes, they should be two' ...

äééðå áùòä ùîðéç ùðéäí öøéê ìä÷ãéí ùì éã.

1.

Answer: That means that whenever one wears both Tefilin one should first put on the shel Yad.

26)

TOSFOS DH YOM TERU'AH YIH'YEH LA'CHEM

úåñ' ã"ä éåí úøåòä éäéä ìëí

(Summary: Tosfos explains the proof.)

îùîò éåí àçã áìáã.

(a)

Clarification: Implying one day only.

27)

TOSFOS DH V'LI'BERACHOS

úåñ' ã"ä åìáøëåú

(Summary: Tosfos defines 'B'rachos'.)

ùäéå àåîøéí ðîé áéåí äëôåøéí ùì ùðú äéåáì îìëéåú æëøåðåú åùåôøåú.

(a)

Clarification: Because also on Yom Kipur of the Yovel-year they would recite Malchiyos, Zichronos and Shofros.

28)

TOSFOS DH MOCHRIN L'OLAM

úåñ' ã"ä îåëøéï ìòåìí

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rashi's three explanations

ô"ä' åàôé' áùðú äéåáì òöîä àí îëøå ÷ø÷ò ùìäí îëåøä äéà åéåöàä, åäîòåú ùìäï ...

(a)

Explanation #1: And even in the Yovel year itself, if they sell their land, the sale is valid and it goes out (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18), and the money is theirs.

ãäà ìéëà ìîéîø ãìà äãøà àøòééäå áéåáì...

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): We cannot explain that the land does not go back to them in the Yovel ...

ãëúéá (åé÷øà ëä) "åàùø éâàì îï äìåéí" -åàîø áô' áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ëè:) ã'îîëøå éåöà çðí' )ì"ä.(

1.

Reason): Since the Torah writes "va'asher Yig'al min ha'Levi'im", from which the Gemara in the last Perek (later, on Daf 29b) extrapolates that 'Any land that he sells is returned to him free of charge. (Rashi's wording).

åìà ðøàä, ãäà îôøù ùîåàì èòîà ì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (âí æä ùí) îùåí ãîëåøä ëáø éåöàä, àéðä îëåøä àéðå ãéï ùìà úîëø...

(c)

Question #1: This is not correct however, since Shmuel will explain there that seeing as whatever is already sold goes back (in the Yovel), it goes without saying that it cannot be sold ...

åääåà èòîà ùééê âáé ëäï ëîå âáé éùøàì.

1.

Question #1 (cont.): And this reason applies as much to a Kohen as it does to a Yisrael.

åòåã éù ìä÷ùåú àìéáà ãøá ðîé ãàîø 'îëøä éåöàú' îàé àéëà áéï éùøàì ìëäðéí [ìéåáì].

(d)

Question #2: And one can ask according to Rav as well, who says that the sale is valid but it goes out - what is the difference between Yisrael and Kohanim regarding the Yovel?

åëï ÷ùä îä âåàìéï ìòåìí?

1.

Question #2 (concl.): And similarly what does 'Go'alin Le'olam' mean?

åéù ÷öú ìéùá äâéøñà ãááúé òøé çåîä -ãéùøàì àéðå âåàìä àìà áúåê ùðä úîéîä, åìåéí åëäðéí âåàìéí ìòåìí...

(e)

Answer: One can partially resolve the text with regard to Batei Arei Chomah - which a Yisrael can only redeem within the complete year, but Levi'im and Kohanim can redeem forever ...

åñ"ã ùáúé òøé çåîä ùìäí ðåäâéï ëáúé äçöøéí , åìéô÷å áéåáì

1.

Answer (cont.): Because we might have thought that the Din concerning their Batei Arei Chomah is the same as that of the houses in their open cities, which go out in the Yovel ...

å'îåëøéï' ãð÷è àâá 'âåàìéï' .

2.

Answer (concl.): And it mentions 'Mochrin' on account of 'Go'alin'.

åøù"é ôé' äëà åæä ìùåðå 'åâåàìéï ìòåìí' -àí îëøå ùãä, âåàìéï àåúå îéã, åéùøàì àéðå âåàì áôçåú îùúé ùðéí, ãëúéá "áîñôø ùðé úáåàåú"

(f)

Explanation #2: Rashi here however, explains - and these are his words: 've'Go'alin Le'olam' - In the event tht he sells a field, he can redeem it at once, whilst a Yisrael cannot redeem it before two years, as the Torah states "According to the number of two produces".

åáøàù äùðä ôø÷ øàåäå áéú ãéï (ãó ëè.) åæäå ìùåðå áùí (øáé éäåãä áø éöç÷) [øáéðå éöç÷] äìåé îåëøéï ìòåìí åâåàìéï ìòåìí ...

(g)

Explanation #3: Whereas in Perek Ra'uhu Beis Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 29a), he explains as follows: 'This is the correct text - "Kohanim and Levi'im may be Makdish forever - This is the text of Rebbi Yitzchak ha'Levi; But my other Rebbes have the text 'May sell forever, and redeem forever' ...

åùúéäí îùðéåú äï áîñëú òøëéï ,åáéï î÷ãéùéï åáéï îåëøéï úøåééäå îùðéåú éúéøåú ðéðäå...

1.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Both of which are Mishnah's in Maseches Erchin, and both of which are superfluous ...

àìà àééãé ãúðà äúí âáé éùøàì 'àéï î÷ãéùéï ìôðé äéåáì ôçåú îùúé ùðéí, åìà âåàìéï àçø äéåáì ôçåú îùðä' ...

2.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Only since the Tana says with regard to a Yisrael 'Ein Makdishin lifnei ha'Yovel Pachos mi'Sh'tei Shanim, ve'Lo Go'alin achar ha'Yovel Pachos mi'Shanah' ...

úðà ðîé âáé ëäðéí 'î÷ãéùéï åâåàìéï ìòåìí' ...

3.

Explanation #3 (cont.): He says also with regard to Kohanim and Levi'im 'Makdishin ve'Go'alin Le'olam' ...

åàééãé ãúðà' î÷ãéùéï åâåàìéï 'âáé äããé , úðà ðîé âáé âåàìéï ãîëéøä 'îåëøéï ìòåìí.'

4.

Explanation #3 (concl.): And now that he learns 'Makdishin and Go'alin' together, he also mentions 'Mochrin le'Olam' by Go'alin of Mechirah.

åäëé îå÷é ìä áîñëú òøëéï.

(h)

Source: And this is how the Gemara establishes it in Maseches Erchin.

(continued on following Daf).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF