תוספות ד"ה בחמש חמה במזרח

(SUMMARY: Having established in Pesachim, that it is easy to confuse the six hour, when the sun is in the middle of the sky, with the seventh, Tosfos asks why according to Abaye, who maintains that in the opinion of R. Yehudah, a person is liable to err up to a half an hour, and we attribute the error to both witnesses, if one of them claims that a crime took place in the fifth hour and the other one in the seventh hour, why their testimony is nullified? Perhaps the former meant the end of the fifth hour and the latter, the beginning of the seventh)

בפ"ק דפסחים (דף יב:) פריך 'בו' נמי ניכול'? ומשני, 'שית יומא בי קרנתא קאי'.

(a) Clarification: In the first Perek of Pesachim, the Gemara asks why it is not permitted to eat Chametz during the sixth hour. And it answers that during the sixth hour, the sun is in the middle of the sky (and it is easy to confuse before mid-day with after midday).

וקשה, כיון שאין היכר בין ו' לז', לאביי, דאמר התם 'לר' יהודה אדם טועה חצי שעה (ומשהו)', ותלינן טעות בשניהם, א"כ, א' אומר בה' וא' אומר בז' אמאי עדותן בטילה?

1. Question (Part 1): Bearing in mind that one cannot tell the difference between the sixth and the seventh hours, according to Abaye, who says there that in the opinion of R. Yehudah, a person is liable to err up to a half an hour, and we attribute the error to both witnesses, if one of them claims that the crime took place in the fifth hour and the other one says, the seventh hour, why is their testimony nullified?

נימא האי דקאמר ה', סוף ה'; והאי דקאמר ז', תחלת ז', ומעשה כי הוה בפלגא דשית והאי טעה פלגא שעתא קמיה והאי טעי פלגא לאחוריה?

2. Question (Part 2): Why do we not assume that the one who said that it took place in the fifth hour, was referring to the end of the fifth hour, whilst the one who said the seventh hour, meant the beginning of the seventh hour, and the time that it really happened was in six and a half hours, so that each witness erred by half an hour, one before the act and the other, after it?

וי"ל, דהא דקאמר 'דשית יומא בי קרנתא קאי, דטעו בין תחלת ו' לז' ' היינו דוקא לענין חמץ דלכל מסור, אבל עדות מסורה לזריזין.

3. Answer: When we say that in the sixth hour the sun is in the middle of the sky, and that people are prone to err between the beginning of the sixth hour and the seventh, that is with reference specifically to Chametz, which is the responsibility of all the people; but not with regard to Eidus, which is handled by 'Zerizim' (people who are alert, and will not err to that extent).



תוספות ד"ה שכן בסייף

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query Rashi's first explanation, that, based on the Pasuk "Nefesh be'Nefesh", Eidim Zomemin are Chayav Sayaf because the Pasuk is speaking about a case of murder, on two scores. They therefore accept Rashi's secomns explanation).

פ"ה, דעיר הנדחת בסייף, ועדים זוממין דפרשתא משמע שמעידין על רוצח, מדכתיב "נפש בנפש".

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the punishment of Ir ha'Nidachas is death by the sword; and the lashon "Nefesh be'Nefesh" used in connection with Eidim Zomemin implies that the Torah is speaking about a case of murder.

ותימה, דעל כל חייבי מיתות שיעידו שייך לומר "נפש בנפש" כשהוזמו?

(b) Question #1: The Lashon "Nefesh be'Nefesh" applies equally to any case of Chayvei Misah, which will result in the death sentence of the Eidim should they turn out to be Zomemin?

ועוד, דההוא "נפש בנפש" מוקמינן ליה בפ"ק דמכות (דף ה:) ד'אין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין'?

(c) Question #2: And besides, in the first Perek o Makos, the Gemara learns from "Nefesh be'Nefesh" the principle that Eidim Zomemin are not sentenced to death unless their testimony ended in a final ruling in Beis-Din?

ול"א שפ"ה עיקר, דאי נמי מיירי בכל עדים זוממין דיש מהם בסקילה; מיהו, הואיל ויש מהם בסייף, לא אחמיר קרא עלייהו להמיתן עד שיחקרו המזימין אותן.

(d) Explanation #2: Therefore Rashi's second explanation is the correct one - that even if the Pasuk is speaking about all Eidim Zomemin, some of which are Chayav Sekilah, seeing as sometimes they are only Chayav Sayaf, the Torah is not so strict as to sentence them to death before those who are Mazim them have been examined.


תוספות ד"ה מדהוה ליה למכתב דרוש תדרוש וחקור תחקור

לאו דווקא, דא"כ הוו להו ד', אפילו הוה כתוב 'דרוש תדרוש וחקרת' או 'חקור תחקור ודרשת' הוה משמע ד', מדלא כתיב 'דרוש דרוש' או 'תדרוש תדרוש', כדאמר במרובה (ב"ק דף סה. ושם) ליכתב 'המצא המצא' או 'תמצא תמצא'.

(a) Clarification: The Gemara does not mean to say that it ought to have written all four, because that would imply four. And even if it would have written 'Darosh Tidrosh ve'Chakarta' or 'Chakor Tachkor ve'Darashta' it would have implied four, seeing as the Torah did not write 'Darosh Darosh' or Tidrosh Tidrosh', (like the Gemara says in Merubeh - 'Let the Torah write 'Himatzei Himatzei' or Timatzei Timatzei'?).


תוספות ד"ה מניין להתראה מן התורה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos presents two ways of learning the Gemara's She'eilah, in spite of the fact that generally speaking, Hasra'ah per se is only needed in order to turn a Shogeg into a Meizid, and does not therefore require a Pasuk).

בחבר קמיבעיא ליה, למ"ד (לעיל דף ח:) 'חבר צריך התראה', דאי בשאינו חבר, הא לא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד.

(a) Explanation #1: The Gemara's She'eilah is restricted to a Chaver, according to those who hold that a Chaver requires warning, since a non-Chaver does not require a Pasuk, since Hasra'ah is only needed in order to turn a Shogeg into a Meizid.

אי נמי, מיבעי ליה 'מנא לן דבעינן המית תוך כדי דיבור'?

(b) Explanation #2: Alternatively, the Gemara's is asking from where we know that the murder must take place within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the warning.