12th Cycle Dedication

ERCHIN 13 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the twelfth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH MISHMARTO SHEL YEHOIYARIV BI'SHENIYYAH MI HAVA'I

úåñ' ã"ä îùîøúå ùì éäåéøéá áùðéä îé äåàé

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

ä÷ùä øáéðå àìçðï, ãäà àîøé' á"÷ (ãó ÷é.) 'ðúï äëñó ìéäåéøéá åàú äàùí ìéãòéä' -àìîà ùäéä ááéú ùðé?

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks from the Gemara in Bava Kama (Daf 110a) which states that 'He returned the money (of Gezel ha'Ger) to Yehoyariv and the Asham to Yeda'ayah' - so we see that they were in the second Beis-ha'Mikdash

åéù ìåîø, ãäà îúðé' îéúðéà áæîï áéú øàùåï.

(b)

Answer #1: This Beraisa was learned in the time of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash.

àé ðîé, ìà éäåéøéá ãåå÷à àìà äîùîø úçú éäåéøéá.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it does not refer Davka to Yehoyariv, but to the Mishmar that replaced them.

2)

TOSFOS DH SHE'AFILU MISHMARTO SHEL YEHOYARIV OLAH

úåñ' ã"ä ùàôé' îùîøúå ùì éäåéøéá òåìä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôøù"é 'ùùåá ìà òìä' .

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they did not subsequently return.

åæäå úéîä, ãîðà ìéä ùùåá ìà òìä? ãäà îùîò ùéëåì ìòìåú, îã÷àîø ù'àôéìå îùîøúå ùì éäåéøéá òåìä' ?

(b)

Question #1: How does Rashi know this? Seeing as ' Even if the Mishmar of Yehoyariv returned' implies that they could still have returned?

åòåã ä÷ùä øáéðå àìçðï, ãäøáä òìå, åàéê ôùåè ìðå ùìà òìä?

(c)

Question #2: Moreover asks Rabeinu Elchanan, many (of the original groups) did return, so how do we know that Yehoyariv did not?

åàîø øáé ãîëì î÷åí éëåì ìäéåú ùòìä éäåéøéá, åäëà ÷à ôøéê äëé ' -îùîøúå ùì éäåéøéá áùðéä îé äåàé... '?

(d)

Explanation #2: 'Rebbi' therefore explains that Yehoyariv may well have returned, and what the Gemara is asking here is - 'Was the Mishmeres of Yehoyariv in the second Beis ha'Mikdash?' ...

ëé ë"ã äéå àìå ðâã äîùîøåú ùìà òìå, ùçìå÷åú ìàøáò åòùøéí îùîøåú åùéîùå úçúéäí.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because those twenty-four Mishmaros corresponded to the twenty-four Mishmaros that did not return, because they divided (the four Mishmaros that returned - See Birchas ha'Zevach) into twenty-four Mioshmaros, which served instead of them.

3)

TOSFOS DH HANACH SHIS AD D'SALIK EZRA V'KADISH LO KA'CHASHIV

úåñ' ã"ä äðê ùéú òã ãñìé÷ òæøà å÷ãéù ìà ÷çùéá

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with what he explained earlier and elaborates.)

öøéê òéåï ìîàé ãôéøùúé ãëé ðîé âìå äùáèéí, îðå ðîé éåáìåú ëãé ì÷ãù äùîéèéï...

(a)

Question: There is a problem, according to what Tosfos wrote earlier (Daf 12b DH 'Hanach Sh'nei') that even after the tribes went into exile, they counted the Yovlos in order to sanctify the Sh'mitin ...

à"ë áâìåú ãááì ÷åãí ãñìé÷ òæøà ðîé äéå îåðéï, åàîàé äúçéìå ìîðåú ëé ñìé÷ òæøà?

1.

Question (cont.): In that case, in Galus Bavel too, before Ezra returned, they they were counting, so why did they begin counting afresh when after Ezra's return?

åé"ì, ãìà ãîé, ãåãàé áòåã éùøàì òì àãîúí, ëé ðîé àéï éåáì ðåäâ, ùîéèä ðåäâ áçøéùä åæøéòä åäéå î÷ãùéï...

(b)

Answer: One cannot compare the cases - to be sure, as long as Yisrael (i.e. the tribe of Yehudah) was in their land, even when Yovel was not applicable, Sh'mitah applied with regard to plowing and planting, so they sanctified it

àáì áâìåú ìà äéå î÷ãùéï ëìì ùáéòéú.

1.

Answer (cont.): But when they were in Galus they did not sanctify the Sh'mitah at all.

åö"ò, ãëé ðîé äéå áâåìä, äéå öøéëéï ì÷ãù ùáéòéú -îôðé ùîéèú ëñôéí ùðåäâú áéï áàøõ áéï áçåöä ìàøõ...

(c)

Question: However, even in Galus they needed to sanctify the Sh'mitah - on account of the cancellation of debts that applies both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz ...

åàí äåà ëê ãùáéòéú àéðå úìåé áéåáì, ëé ðîé éùøàì áâìåú åàéðï ëìì òì àãîúï, ìîä ìà éîðå ùîéèéï ëîå î÷öú éùøàì òì àãîúï ...

1.

Question (cont.): And if this is correct, that Sh'mitah does not depend upon Yovel, even when Yisrael are in Galus, and not on their land at all, why should they not count Sh'mitin as if some of Yisrael were on their land?

åàó òì âá ãàéï ëì éåùáéä òìéä îåðéï ùáéòéú, àó òì âá ùàéï îåðéï éåáì?

2.

Question (concl.): And even though not all its inhabitants are on it, they count Sh'mitah, even though they don't count Yovel (See Avodah Berurah) ...

4)

TOSFOS DH OSO Z'MAN L'SHANAH HA'BA'AH

úåñ' ã"ä àåúå æîï ìùðä äáàä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the issue.)

ùäåà ùìù (åòùøéí) áàãø òìä òæøà îááì...

(a)

Clarification: Which is the third of Adar, Ezra went up from Bavel (See Ner Mitzvah).

åòìä éøåùìéí áçãù äçîéùé, ùàéçø áîäìê äãøê îçãù àãø òã çãù àá.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And he went to Yerushalayim in the fifth month, traveling slowly from the month of Adar till the month of Av.

5)

TOSFOS DH KALEV KAMAH HAVI BAR TAMNIN N'CHI TARTIN

úåñ' ã"ä ëìá ëîä äåé áø úîðéï ðëé úøúéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains how the Gemara knew Kalev's age at the time he entered Eretz Yisrael.)

åä÷ùä øáéðå àìçðï, äà îðéï ìðå ùáùðä ùðéä ãåå÷à äéä ëìá áï î' ùðä- ãàæ äåä ëé òáø éùøàì àú äéøãï áø úîðéï ðëé úøéï...

(a)

Question: From where does the Gemara know, asks Rabeinu Elchanan, that Kalev turned forty only in the second year - in which case when Yisrael crossed over the Yarden he would have been seventy-eight ...

ùîà äúçéì ùðú äàøáòéí ùìå áùðä øàùåðä ,åáùéìåç îøâìéí äéä àøáòéí åàçã) áñåó äàøáòéí ùäøé ùðåú ëìá ìà îöéðå ( åëùòáøå éùøàì àú äéøãï äåä áø úîðéï ðëé çã?

1.

Question (cont.): Perhaps the fortieth year began in the first year, so that when they sent the Spies he was forty-one and when they crossed the Yarden, he was seventy-nine ...

åîðà ìäù"ñ äà ãæ' ëéáùå åæ' çéì÷å?

2.

Question (concl.): And from where does the Gemara know that they conquered seven years and distributed seven years (See Avodah Berurah).

åàîø øáé, ãìà áà äëúåá ìñúåí àìà ìôøù...

(b)

Answer: 'Rebbi' explains that the Pasuk does not come to be vague but to be precise ...

ãîä ìðå ìùðåú ëìá àí ìà ìäåãéòðå áåãàé ùæ' ëéáùå åæ' çéì÷å.

1.

Answer: Because why would we need to know Kalev's age, if not to inform us that they conquered seven years and distributed seven years?

6)

TOSFOS DH MAI K'DEI LA'SHEVES SIMNA B'ALMA

úåñ' ã"ä îàé ëãé ìùáú ñéîðà áòìîà

(Summary: Tosfos points out a discrepancy between this statement and the Sugya in Menachos.)

äëà îôøù îòé÷øà ã'ëãé ìùáú ' ... ñéîðà áòìîà, àáì áîðçåú ôø÷ äúëìú (ãó îè: åùí) ìà àîø äëé òã ãáîñ÷ðà ...

(a)

Implied Question: Here the Tana explains at the outset that 'Enough to cover Shabbos ... ' is just a Si'man, whereas in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 49b & 50a) it says so only at the end ...

ã÷àîø äúí 'àîø øáéðà ìøá àùé "äðé ùùä, ùáòä äåå- ãäà àéëà öôøà ãçã áùáúà, àé ãåå÷à ð÷è "ìùáú '? " ...

1.

Implied Question (cont.): When it quotes Ravina, who asked Rav Ashi 'These six are really seven - seeing as there is the Sunday morning to contend with, assuming that "for Shabbos" is Davka?'

åä"ô -àí äéå á' éîéí øàù äùðä áéåí äçîéùé åáéåí ùùé, áéåí äøàùåï éá÷øå äúîéã ùäåà àøáòä éîéí ÷åãí ùçéèúå ùì ä' áùáú...

(b)

Explanation: What he means is this - If the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah fell on Thursday and Friday, then on Sunday they would examine the Tamid on Sunday - four days before the Shechitah on Thursday ...

åùì éåí å' ùäåà ùðé ìø"ä éá÷øå áéåí ùðé ùäåà ã' éîéí ÷åãí ùçéèúå ;åëï ùì ùáú îá÷øå áéåí â' ...

1.

Explanation: (cont.): And the Tamid for Friday, which is the second day Rosh ha'Shanah, they would examine on Monday - four days before its Shechitah; and likewise that of Shabbos they would exam ine onTuesday ...

åôøéê 'ùáòä äåå'? -ãäà àéëà öôøà ãçã áùáúà, ùâí äåà èòåï áé÷åø ã' éîéí ÷åãí ùçéèúå, åà"ë äéàê éôçúå îæ'?

2.

Explanation: (concl.): And it is on this that Ravina asks that 'It really ought to be seven - seeing as there is the Tamid of Sunday, which also requires examination four days before its Shechitah, in which case how can there be less than seven?

7)

TOSFOS DH U'MOSIFIN AD OLAM AD KAMAH AMAR RAV HUNA V'AMRI LAH ETC. (This Dibur belongs on Amud Beis).

úåñ' ã"ä åîåñéôéï òã òåìí òã ëîä àîø øá äåðà åàîøé ìä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos presents two ways of interpreting the question.)

åàîø øáé ãäà åãàé ôùéèà ùéåëìå ìäåñéó òã äòåìí, àìà áòé òã ëîä éäà äéãåø îöåä, åà"ö ìçôù éåúø àçø ëäðéí ...

(a)

Explanation #1: 'Rebbi' says that it is obvious (to the Gemara) that one is permitted to add indefinitely, and the question is up to how many is it considered a Hidur Mitzvah, and it is not necessary to search for more Kohanim ...

'àîø øá äåðà ... òã ÷"ë' ,ãäà àùëçï á÷øà (ãä"á ä) ùçôùå àçøé ÷"ë ëäðéí ìú÷åò áçöåöøåú åìà éåúø.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Rav Huna said up to a hundred and twenty', seeing as th Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (2, 5) records how they searched for a hundred and twenty Kohanim to blow the trumpets and no more.

àé ðîé, ãäà ôùéèà ãàéï îåñéôéï òã äòåìí, ùàí éåñéôå éåúø òéøáåá ÷ìà...

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is obvious that adding indefinitely is not permitted, because if one does, the sounds will intermingle ...

'àîø øá äåðà òã ÷"ë' ëäðéí éëåì ìäåñéó ,ãäà àùëçðà á÷øà ãìà çééùéðï ìòéøáåá ÷ìà.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'Rav Huna said up that one may add up to a hundred and twenty' Kohanim, since we find in the Pasuk that they were not concerned with the mingling of sounds.

13b----------------------------------------13b

8)

TOSFOS DH EIN KATAN NICHNAS BA'AZARAH MINAH HANI MILI AMAR REBBI YOCHANAN D'AMAR`K'RA VA'YA'AMOD YESHU'A BANAV V'ECHAV KADMI'EL

úåñ' ã"ä àéï ÷èï ðëðñ áòæøä ...îðä"î àîø ø' éåçðï [ãàîø ÷øà] åéòîåã éùåò áðéå åàçéå ÷ãîéàì

(Summary: Tosfos explains from where the Gemara knows that a Katan may enter the Azarah to join the Levi'im in Shir.)

åä÷ùä øáéðå àìçðï äéëé éìôéðï ã÷èï ðëðñ ìòæøä ìùéø áùòä ùäìåéí òåîãéí ìãåëï?

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks from where the Gemara knows that a Katan may enter the Azarah to sing whilst the Levi'im are standing on the Duchan (See Shitah Mekubetzes 14)?

åàîø ø"é, ãøáé ìéä îéúåøà ã÷øà ëúéá "áðéäí åàçéäí äìåéí" åëúéá "éùåò áðéå åàçéå ,÷ãîéàì åáðéå áðé éäåãä áðé çðãã" ...

(b)

Answer: The Ri answers that it learns it from a Ribuy of the Pasuk, which writes "Their sons and their brothers the Levi'im" (this phrase is written at the end of the following one), and "Yeshu'a, his sons and his brothers stood, Kadmi'el and his sons the sons of Yehudah, the sons of Chenadad" ...

"áðéäí" ìîä ìé? åäìà äæëéø ëì àçã "åáðéå" ... ?

1.

Answer (cont.): Why does it add "their sons"? seeing as it mentions "his sons" by each one, rendering it superfluous?

àìà ù"î ãìäëé ëúáéä, ãìéäåé îéåúø -åîùîò ÷èðéí.

2.

Answer (concl.): It must therefore insert it, that it should be superfluous - and it implies Ketanim.

HADRAN ALACH 'EIN NE'ERACHIN'
9)

TOSFOS DH YESH B'ECHIN MAH BEIN SADEH MIKNEH L'SADEH ACHUZAH

úåñ' ã"ä îä áéï ùãä î÷ðä ìùãä àçåæä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites another distinction the Gemara could have drawn.)

åäåà äãéï ãäåä îöé ìîéîø çéìå÷ àçø áéï ùãä àçåæä ìùãä î÷ðä ...

(a)

Implied Question: It could also have drawn another distinction between a Sadeh Achuzah and a Sadeh Mikneh ...

ùáùãä àçåæä àí ä÷ãéùå åâàìå àçø îúçì÷ ìëäðéí áéåáì, åáùãä î÷ðä àí ä÷ãéùå åâàìå àçø çåæø ìáòìéí áéåáì...

1.

Implied Question (cont.): In that if one declares a Sadeh Achuzah Hekdesh and somebody else redeems it, it is divided up among the Kohanim in the Yovel, whereas a Sadeh Mikneh reverts to the owner when the Yovel arrives ...

åìà ðçú ìôøåùé àìà çéìå÷ ãùééê ëùäåà òöîå ôåãäå.

(b)

Answer: Only it confines itself to differences that apply to where the owner redeems them.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF