1) TOSFOS DH MAH BEIN DINEI MAMONOS LE'DINEI NEFASHOS

תוספות ד"ה מה בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות

אף על גב דשוים בחקירה ודרישה' מדכתיב "משפט אחד יהיה לכם", לענין מילי דתלו בזכות וחובה אין להשוותם, דלא שייך בדיני ממונות.

(a) Reason: Despite the fact that, based on the Pasuk "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem", they are equal with regard to 'Chakirah' and 'Derishah', it would not be logical to compare them with regard to matters concerning merit and guilt, since these are not relevant to money matters.

2) TOSFOS DH CHAISHINAN SHEMA ICHRUHU

תוס' ד"ה חיישינן שמא איחרוהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first disagree with Rashi's interpretation of 'Ichruhu'; then they explain why the Gemara needs to come on to the reason of 'Ichruhu' in the first place).

פ"ה, איחרוהו מלכתוב עד אחד בניסן, וכתבוהו במקום שאומרים המזימין.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they postponed writing the Sh'tar until the first of Nisan, and wrote it in the place to which the witnesses referred.

ועל חנם דחק.

(b) Refutation: This pushed explanation however, was quite unnecessary.

אלא י"ל, כי ההיא דגט פשוט (ב"ב דף קעא. ושם) 'שטר שזמנו כתוב בו בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי שטר מאוחר הוא, וכשר.

(c) Explanation #2 (Part 1): What the Gemara really means is like the Sugya in 'Get Pashut', which rules that 'A Sh'tar that is dated on Shabbos or on the tenth of Tishri is a 'Sh'tar Me'uchar' (i.e. post-dated) and is Kasher.

וה"נ שטר זה נכתב לפני אחד בניסן של שמיטה במקום הכתוב בשטר. ונמצא כשהגיע אחד בניסן של שמיטה, שהוא זמנו של שטר, לא היו באותו מקום, שהלכו למקום אחר.

(d) Explanation #2 (Part 1): Here too, the Sh'tar under discussion was written before the first of Nisan of the Sh'mitah in the location written in the Sh'tar. It therefore transpires that when the first of Nisan of the Sh'mitah arrived, which is the date on the Sh'tar, they were not in that place, since they had moved to another location.

וא"ת, מאי איריא משום דאיחרוהו? כי לא איחרוהו נמי יש להכשיר, כדאמר 'אי ידיעתו יומא דאקניתו ביה, כתובו יומא דאקניתו ביה!' ושמא לא באחד בניסן נכתב אלא אחרי כן במקום הכתוב בו?

(e) Question: In that case, why does the Gemara say that it is 'because they post-dated it? Even if they hadn't, the Sh'tar ought to be Kasher, as the Gemara says in Bava Basra 'If you know the date on which the Kinyan took place, then insert that date in the Sh'tar!' So maybe the Sh'tar was predated, in that it was written after the first Nisan in the location mentioned in the Sh'tar?

וי"ל, דהכא בשטר מלוה איירי, דאין לכתוב אלא יום שנכתב השטר, דלא ליגבי ממשעבדי שלא כדין.

(f) Answer: Our Sugya is discussing a Sh'tar Milveh, which one is not permitted to predate, so as not to claim from the purchasers illegally.

ומיהו משמע מהכא דתלינן מספק להכשיר את השטר.

1. Inference: In any event, we can extrapolate from our Sugya that, in the case of a Safek, we can rely on a leniency and declare the Sh'tar Kasher ...

וקשה לפ"ה דריש פ"ק דר"ה. (דף ב. ושם) ואין להאריך כאן.

2. Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, though here is not the place to elaborate.

32b----------------------------------------32b

3) TOSFOS DH KA'AN BE'DIN MERUMAH

תוספות ד"ה כאן בדין מרומה

לא שיודעים בו שהוא מרומה, דא"כ אין לדונו כלל - כדדרשינן בפרק שבועות העדות (שבועות ל:) מדכתיב "מדבר שקר תרחק".

(a) Clarification: This does not mean that we know for sure that it is a 'Din Merumah', because if it was, then, based on the Pasuk "mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak", Beis-Din would not be permitted to accept it in the first place, as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os,

4) TOSFOS DH KOL RECHAYIM BE'BURNI

תוספות ד"ה קול רחיים בבורני

(SUMMARY: Based on the Yerushalmi in Kesuvos, Tosfos agree with Rashi that this is referring to the signs of a Simchah that they would discreetly issue during the time of the Roman decrees, despite the fact that Yirmiyah ha'Navi already hinted at them).

פ"ה שעת גזירת המלכות היה שגזרו שלא למול, והיו יראים להוציא קול, וקבעו סימן זה.

(a) Clarification: Rashi explains that this occurred during the decree of the ruling power forbidding them to circumcise their children. Afraid to publicize the Milos, when they performed them, they fixed this sign instead.

וכן משמע בירושלמי דכתובות (פ"א) גבי 'הגזירה שגזרו ביהודה', דקאמר 'מה סימן היה? 'קול מגרוס בבורני, משתה שם! אור נר בברור חיל, שבוע הבן!' פירוש 'קול מגרוס' - רחיים של גרוסות.

(b) Proof: And so it is implied in the Yerushalmi in Kesuvos, with regard to 'the decree that they issued in Yehudah', where the Gemara asks what Siman (sign) they introduced? And it answers 'The noise of the grist-grinder in Burni (or in town - Tosfos ha'Rosh) meant that there was a wedding in progress; Whereas the light of a lamp in B'ror-Chayil signified a B'ris Milah (see Maharam).

והא דכתיב בירמיה (כ"ה) "והאבדתי מהם קול ששון וקול שמחה, קול חתן וקול כלה, קול רחיים ואור נר"?

(c) Question: Then how come that the Navi Yirmiyah (who lived long before the time of the Greeks currently under discussion) already warned "And I will eliminate from them the sound of rejoicing and happiness, the sound of Chasan and of Kalah, the sound of the mill and the light of the lamp!"?

איכא למימר שגם בראשונה היו עושין סימנין אלו לשם שמחה.

(d) Answer: Perhaps in the times of the first Beis-Hamikdash they used the same Simanim to publicize their Semachos.

5) TOSFOS DH OR HA'NER BI'BEROR CHAYIL

תוספות ד"ה אור הנר בברור חיל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source of two custom that are practiced at a B'ris).

מכאן נהגו להדליק נר במילה.

(a) Ruling #1: The Minhag to kindle lights at a B'ris stems from here (see Maharam).

ומה שנהגו לפרוש המפה על הפתח...

1. Ruling #2: Furthermore, there is a Minhag to hand a cloth a hanging at the entrance ...

משום דאמר בריש המוכר פירות (ב"ב דף צג:) 'מנהג גדול היה בירושלים, כל זמן שהמפה פרוסה על הפתח, אורחין נכנסין'.

2. Source: This stems from the Gemara in 'ha'Mocher Peiros, which states that 'There was a major Minhag in Yerushalayim, permitting guests to enter, as long as there was a cloth hanging at the door.

6) TOSFOS DH HEICHI AMAR L'HU

תוספות ד"ה היכי אמרי' להו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuss why, according to Rashi, who learns that we query the witnesses after their testimony has been accepted, encouraging them to withdraw it is not a matter of 'Keivan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid'. If, as they suggest, it is considered 'Toch K'dei Dibur', then the question remains, why Ula, who disagrees with Rav Yehudah, does not simply establish it where they waited until after 'Toch K'dei Dibur' had expired? Finally, they try to establish the Gemara where the witnesses retracted before they have been cross-examined, but agree with Rashi, who does not agree with that).

פ"ה, כשקיבלו עדותן של עדים.

(a) Clarification: Rashi explains that this pertains to after they have accepted the testimony of the witnesses.

ואם תאמר, א"כ, במאי חסמינן להו, הא 'כיון שהגיד, שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד'?

(b) Question: In that case; how does one encourage them to withdraw, seeing as we have a principle that 'Once witnesses have testified, they are not permitted to withdraw'?

וכ"ת, שיחזרו בהן תוך כדי דיבור, כפ"ה?

(c) Implied Answer: Perhaps we make them withdraw 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (in the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem, Rebbi', as Rashi explains?

הא 'מי יימר כדאמריתו הוי?' טפי מתוך כדי דיבור.

(d) Refutation: But the words 'Mi Yeimar ke'de'Amrisu Havi?' ('Who said that it is like you said?') that we say to them takes longer than 'Toch K'dei Dibur' to say.

וכ"ת דלא חשיב הפסק?

(e) Implied Answer: Perhaps this is not called an interruption (to negate 'Toch K'dei Dibur', seeing as it is all part of the process of Din and of the testimony - Tosfos ha'Rosh).

לימא אחר כדי דיבור אמרי' להו, ואף על גב דאין פתיחה זו מועלת.

(f) Refutation: If that is so, then Ula ought to have answered that we say it to them after 'K'dei Dibur (See Maharam), even though this introduction does not count?

ויש לומר, דה"מ לשנויי הכי; אלא דשפיר משני.

(g) Answer #1: Ula could indeed have answered that, but it is not necessary, since he has an equally good answer ready.

ועי"ל, דעד שלא נחקרה עדותן בב"ד, יכולין לומר 'מבודין אנו' כדתניא בתוספתא.

(h) Answer #2: Alternatively, as long as the witnesses have not been cross-examined, they are entitled to claim that they have been lying, and to retract from their original statement.

מיהו בקונטרס פירש - דפתיחת זכות לאחר שדרשום וחקרום, ובאין לישא וליתן.

(i) Refutation: Rashi however, explains that Beis-Din begin to deal with the merits of the defendant only after the Derishah va'Chakirah.

וכפי' משמע בפ' היו בודקין (לקמן ד' מ.) דקתני 'אם נמצאו דבריהם מכוונים, פותחין'.

(j) Proof: And his explanation is substantiated by the Mishnah in the fifth Perek which states that 'If the words of the witnesses are found to be accurate, Beis-Din began ... '.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF