12TH CYCLE DEDICATION
MAKOS 16 - Dedicated by HaGaon HaRav Yosef and Ruthie Pearlman of London, England. May Hashem bless them with good health and all their material needs, and may they enjoy many years of Nachas and joy from their wonderful children and grandchildren.

1) TOSFOS DH 'I DE'KATLA, KAM LEIH BI'DE'RABAH MINEIH‘.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘אי דקטלה, קם ליה בדרבה מיניה‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that when the bird dies by itself, then he did not negate the Asei, and that the same applies where he killed it be'Shogeg).

ואם מתה, א"כ לא בטלה איהו.

(a) Clarification: And in the event that the bird dies by itself, then he did not negate the Asei.

ואם תאמר, דלמא מיירי דקטלה, ומ"מ לא הוי קם ליה בדרבה מיניה, דמיירי שהרגה בשוגג?

(b) Question: Why can it not be speaking where he killed it, and it is not a case of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' because he killed it be'Shogeg?

וי"ל, דא"כ היינו כמו מיתה מאליה, כיון דהרגה שלא במתכוין. (כך הקשה משי"ח ותירץ).

(c) Answer: Seeing as he killed it be'Shogeg, it is no different than if it died by itself (see a) So Mashi'ach asked and answered.

2) TOSFOS DH 'K'GON SHE'HIDIRAH BE'RABIM

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘כגון שהדירה ברבים‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refute Rashi's explanation, that the Neder takes effect only because the woman was found to have committed a sin that forbade her to him anyway. They then offer an explanation of their own).

פי' הקונט', שמצא לה עון שאסורה לו, והדירה.

(a) Clarification: Rashi establishes it where he made the Neder after discovering that she had committed adultery and was therefore forbidden to him.

ולא נראה, דא"כ אינו מצוה לקיימה?

(b) Question: This is not correct however, because in that case, he is not obligated to retain her.

אלא נראה, שהדירה בלא שום עון ושפיר חל עליה, כגון דאמר ‘קונם תשמישך עלי‘, כדאיתא בנדרים (דף פא:).

(c) Alternative Explanation: It therefore appears that she did not sin, yet the Neder nevertheless takes effect, because it speaks where he said 'Konem (Hana'as) Tashmishech Alai', in which case the Neder takes effect, as we learned in Nedarim.

3) TOSFOS DH 'VE'HA IKA "HA'AVET TA'AVITENU") "LO SAVO EL BEISO … HASHEV TASHIV LO"; U'MASHKACHAS LAH … '.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘והא איכא ׁ("העבט תעביטנו") "לא תבוא אל ביתו … השב תשיב לו"; ומשכחת לה ... ‘.

(SUMMARY: See Maharam, who does not know how to explain this Tosfos. I have therefore left the entire Dibur blank. See Tosfos Shantz).

וא"ת, והא הוי עשה שקדמו לאו, דהשבת העבוט שייך קודם שיעבור לילך אל ביתו לעבוט עבוטו, דבמשכנו ברשות שייך השבת העבוט?

(a) Question: But this is an Asei that is preceded by a La'v, seeing as returning the security is applicable before the creditor transgresses by going to the debtor's house to take the security, because returning the security applies where he takes it with permission?

וי"ל, דדרשינן בפרק אלו מציאות (ב"מ לא:) מיתורא ד"השב תשיב" דקאי א'משכנו שלא ברשות; א"כ, על כרחך שייך עשה ד"השב תשיב לו" לאחר שעבר, כדאמרינן לעיל ‘אם אינו ענין לפניו, תנהו ענין לאחריו‘.

(b) Answer: In Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a 31:) we extrapolate from the double Lashon "Hashev Tashiv" that it refers to where he took it without permission; in tha case, the Asei of "Hashev Tashiv lo" applies only after he has transgressed the La'v, as we said above 'If we do not need the Pasuk for before the La'v, establish it after it'.

4) TOSFOS DH 'HASAM ISA BE'TASHLUMIN'.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘התם איתא בתשלומין‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that 'Lo Bitlo' is not applicable here due to the obligation to pay both according to our text and according to the text 've'Eino Lokeh u'Meshalem'). They refute the suggestion that attributes it to "K'dei Rish'aso" on two scores. Finally, they prove that the current discussion is confined to R. Yochanan, but that, according to Resh Lakish, there is no problem, as it is easy to find a case of 'Lo Kiymo' [despite the fact that the Gemara does mention 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo']).

כששרפו וחייב ממון, הלכך לא משכחת ביה ‘בטלו‘, דכל אימת דיש לו ממון לא ילקה.

(a) Clarification: It is possible to negate the Asei (of returning the security), but he will not receive Malkos, seeing as he is Chayav to pay, and wherever there is an obligation to pay, there is no Malkos.

ויש ספרים דגרסי ‘ואינו לוקה ומשלם‘ כלומר, הכא על כרחך אינו לוקה, הואיל ומיפטר בתשלומין.

(b) Alternative Text & Explanation: Others have the text 'and one cannot receive Malkos and pay'. What this means is that since he fulfills his obligation by paying for the article, he will not be subject to Malkos.

אבל ליכא לפרושי דתרתי לא עבדינן ליה מלקות וממון, משום "כדי רשעתו"; והלכך ‘משלם ואינו לוקה‘ - דזה אינו, חדא דא"כ אדרבה, יש לנו לומר ‘ילקה ולא ישלם‘ - דבפ' אלו נערות (כתובות דף לב:) אמר ר' יוחנן דהיכא שמצינו ממון ומלקות, מילקא לקי, ממונא לא משלם.

(c) Refuted Explanation: It cannot however mean that, based on the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso" (which teaches us that a person cannot receive two punishments) he will be Chayav to pay and is Patur from Malkos.

1. Reason for refutation: Because then the reverse would be true; he would receive Malkos and be Patur from paying; for so R. Yochanan taught in Kesuvos, that whoever is Chayav to pay and to receive Malkos, 'Lokeh ve'Eino Meshalem'.

ועוד, דא"כ מאי פריך, ‘והרי משכונו של גר, ומת הגר?‘ ומשני, ‘התם גברא בר תשלומין ושיעבודא דגר פקע‘; ומאי שנא? הא כיון דלא משלם, א"כ ביטלו, ולילקי? וליכא נמי שתי רשעיות?

2. A Second Reason: Because if that were so, then on what grounds does the Gemara ask from the security of a Ger, where the Ger died, and answer that there is different, seeing as the man is still obligated to pay, and it is the Shibud that has been removed when the Ger died that prevents him from paying. What difference does it make? At the end of the day, seeing as he failed to pay before the Ger died, 'Bitlo' applies, and, seeing as he is not paying, why should he not receive Malkos?

לכן צ"ל כדפירשתי, כיון דגברא בר תשלומין, וכל אימת דמשלם לא לקי; הלכך לא משכחת ליה ביטלו.

(d) Conclusion: We must therefore explain like we just said, that since the sinner remains obligated to pay, and as long as he does pay, he does not receive Malkos, 'Bitlo' is therefore not applicable.

אבל קשה, לר"ל מיהא משכחת שפיר ‘קיימו ולא קיימו‘ כשב"ד הזהירו להחזיר ואומר שלא יחזיר?

(e) Question: According to Resh Lakish at least, one can find a case of 'Kiymo ve'Lo Kiymo', there Beis-Din warned him to return what he owes, and he declines?

ונראה למורי, דודאי הכי נמי דמשכחת לה לר"ל. אבל לרבי יוחנן דאמר זאת ועוד אחרת ותו לא, הוא דאמר לטעמיה ‘ביטלו ולא ביטלו‘; אבל לר"ל משכחת לה שפיר בלא הדירה והשבת העבוט.

(f) Answer: That is correct! According to Resh Lakish it is certainly possible to find cases of 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo', even without a Neder, and besides the case of Hashavas he'Avot; And it is according to R. Yochanan, who holds 'Bitlo, ve'Lo Bitlo' that the Gemara could find only two cases, and which therefore asked 'Are there no more cases ... '?

אבל קשה, דמשמע דמקשה פריך אף לר"ל אתא שפיר, מדנקט ‘קיימו ולא וקיימו‘?

(g) Question: The fact that the Gemara mentions 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo' however, implies that it is asking on Resh Lakish too?

דלא פריך אלא לרבי יוחנן, אבל לר"ל שפיר, ‘וקיימו... ‘ נקט אגב גררא.

(h) Answer: The Gemara's question is in fact, confined to R. Yochanan (as we explained), and it only mentions 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo' by the way (even though it has no relevance).

16b----------------------------------------16b

5) TOSFOS DH 'BINISA DE'BEI KARBA'.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘ביניתא דבי כרבא‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refute Rashi's explanation of Binisa, and present their own explanation).

פי' הקונט', תולעת הנמצאת בכרוב; ונקר' צייל"א.

(a) Clarification: According to Rashi this refers to a worm in a cabbage

וקשה, דמאי קמ"ל, פשיטא דשרץ גמור הוא?

(b) Question: What is Rav Yehudah then coming to teach us? Seeing as it is a regular insect, it is obvious that he will receive Malkos?

ופר"ת, ביניתא כמו דג קטן הנמצא במחרישה, וקמ"ל דאע"ג דאם דנמצא במים היה מותר (לפי שיש לו קשקשים) אפ"ה לוקה, אע"ג דאי הוי במים טהור.

(c) Alternative Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'Binisa' is a small fish that is found in the plow; and what Rav Yehudah is coming to teach us is that even though it has fins and scales, in which case it would be Kasher if one were to find it in the water, if it is found on dry land, it is subject to Malkos.

6) TOSFOS DH 'RISAK TISH'AH NEMALIM VE'ECHAD CHAI'.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘ריסק ט' נמלים ואחד חי.‘

(SUMMARY: After clarifying that 'Chai' means whole, and not whole, Tosfos explain why the whole one is necessary, rejecting the suggestion that it needs to be both whole and a 'k'Zayis. Finally, they discuss the problem of Neveilah taking effect on the Isur of Sheratzim being a question of 'Isur Chal al Isur', which generally, we don't say).

פי' שלם, אבל ודאי הוה מת; דאי ר"ל חי ממש, א"כ היאך משלים לכזית נבילות?

(a) Clarification: 'Chai' means whole, but not alive, because if it did, how could it possibly make up a k'Zayis of Neveilah?

וא"ת, ול"ל שיהא שלם, בכזית ממנו לילקי משום לאו דשרצים, דלכך אתא ‘אכילה‘ דשרצים לומר דאי איכא בו זיתים הרבה ואכל חד כזית חייב?

(b) Question: Why does it need to be whole? Why will he not receive Malkos on account of the regular La'av of Sheratzim, seeing as the 'Achilah' by Sheratzim comes to teach us that somebody who eats one of a number of k'Zeisim receives Malkos?

דליכא למימר דאתא לומר דבעינן דאית ביה כזית ולעולם בעינן שיהא שלם.

(c) Suggested Explanation: Why can we not explain that he really needs to eat a k'Zayis that is at the same time whole?

דהא ליתא, דנמלה כל שהוא חייב! א"כ על כרחך ‘אכילה‘ אתא למידרש היכא דאיכא ה' זיתים או ד', ואכל חד כזית מינייהו דחייב?

(d) Refutation: We cannot say that, seeing as one is Chayav for eating a whole ant, irrespective of its size, 'Achilah' must be coming to teach us that one is Chayav for eating one k'Zayis out of four or five as we explained.

וי"ל, לכך נקט ‘אחד שלם‘ משום דאיכא לאוי דשרצים דלא נכתבו בלשון אכילה, ומאותם לא ילקה עד שיאכל הבריה שלימה; אבל ודאי היכא דכתיב ביה לאו בלשון ‘אכילה‘ לקי אף כשהבריה אינה שלימה.

(e) Answer: The reason that the Gemara says 'one hole' is because some of the La'avin of Sheratzim are not written using a Lashon of 'Achilah', and it is those La'avin that are not subject to Malkos, unless he eats the Beryah whole. But certainly, as far as those La'avin that are written using a Lashon of 'Achilah' is concerned, he will receive Malkos even the one ant is not whole.

אבל קשה, היכא יצטרף אותו שלם לכזית נבילות? והלא אין איסור נבלה חל עליו?

1. Query: But how can the whole ant combine to the k'Zayis of Neveilos, bearing in mind that Isur Neveilah cannot take effect on the Isur of Sheratzim?

דה"נ אמר במס' מעילה פרק קדשי מזבח (דף טז. ושם) דאין איסור נבילה חל על איסור (נבלת) בהמה טמאה?

2. Proof: Just as we find in Me'ilah, where the Gemara says that the Isur of Neveilah cannot take effect on the Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah?

וי"ל, דהכא אתיא כמאן דאית ליה ‘איסור חל על איסור‘, דאיכא מאן דאמר התם דלאכילה נמי מצטרפין ללקות משום נבלה טמאה וטהורה, ואע"ג שאין בו לא איסור כולל ולא איסור מוסיף.

3. Answer: Our Sugya holds 'Isur Chal al Isur', to conform with the opinion there which holds that they combine for the Isur Achilah too, to render him Chayav Malkos for both Beheimah Temei'ah and Tehorah (i.e. Neveilah), even though the latter is neither an Isur Kolel nor an Isur Mosif.

והטעם משום דמצינו דאיסור נבלה חל על איסור דחלב, ואפילו למאן דלית ליה ‘איסור חל על איסור‘ כלל, אמרינן נמי דטמאים מצטרפין מהאי טעמא (וע"ע תוס' חולין צו: ד"ה ור' יהודה).

4. Reason: And the reason for this is because we find the Isur of Neveilah taking effect on the Isur of Cheilev, even according to those who do not otherwise hold that 'Isur Chal al Isur', as we learned in Yevamos (see Maharsha).

7) TOSFOS DH 'VA'AFILU SHENAYIM VE'HU.'

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘ואפילו שנים והוא‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the whole ant plus two is a bigger Chidush than the whole ant plus ten).

וא"ת, ומאי חידוש הוא בשנים יותר מבעשר כיון דבשנים [והוא] איכא כזית?

(a) Question: What makes a whole ant plus two a bigger Chidush than a whole ant plus ten?

וי"ל, דקמ"ל רבותא טפי; דכיון דעתה כשהוא חי שלם משלימו לכזית אע"פ שאם היה מרוסק כמו האחרים לא היה משלימו לכזית. אבל בט' נמלים, דאיכא סגי, אפילו נתרסקו כולם היה משלים שיש מהם הרבה.

(b) Answer: The Chidush is that even though if the whole one would be crushed like the other two, it would not complete the k'Zayis, not that it does, he receives Malkos because of the k'Zayis. This is less of a Chidush than where there are ten ants plus the whole one, since there, since there are so many crushed one, the whole one would complete the k"Zayis if it was crushed.

8) TOSFOS DH 'HA BE'RAVR'VI, HA BE'ZUTRI'.

תוס‘ ד"ה ‘ולא פליגי, הא ברברבי הא בזוטרי‘.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why, by the same token, the Gemara does teach us the same Din there where there is only one large ant that has not been crushed).

פי' ‘ברברבי‘ אחד והוא.

(a) Clarification: Large ones means 'another one' plus the whole one.

ולא ידענא, דכיון דנחית להכי, לימא בחד לבד לוקה שש משום בריה ומשום כזית נבלה?

(b) Question: Seeing as the Gemara enters into these details, why does it not teach us that for eating one whole ant alone he will receive six Malkos, due to a combination of Beryah and a k'Zayis Neveilah?

ושמא לא שכיח דבחד איכא כזית.

(c) Answer: Perhaps it is because it is unusual to find one ant that is the size of a k'Zayis.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF