1) TOSFOS DH HA MANI R. SHIMON HI.

תוספות ד"ה הא מני ר"ש היא

אע"ג דר"ש לא דריש וי"ו ד"ושופטיך" בפרק קמא (דף יד. ושם)?

(a) Implied Question: Even though R. Shimon, in the first Perek of Bava Kama, does not Darshen the 'Vav' of "Shoftecha"?

הכא דריש.

(b) Answer: Nevertheless, here he does Darshen the 'Vav' (of "u'Bas").

51b----------------------------------------51b

2) TOSFOS DH SIRCHA NAKAT

תוספות ד"ה סירכא נקט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites Rashi's explanation on the Gemara's Kashya and Teretz, and explains why the text reads 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah' when we have just changed the ruling to Sekilah. Finally, they offer another interpretation of 'Sircha Nakat' to explain how this also answers the Kashya why the Tana says 'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah').

פ"ה, והא דקאמר "את אביה", ולא נקט לשון 'ארוסה' ולשון 'נשואה'?

(a) Explanation: Rashi explains that what the Gemara means to ask is why the Tana Kama says 'es Avihah' (rather than a Lashon of Arusah and Nesu'ah ... ).

סירכא נקט.

(b) Explanation #1: The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because it follows the Lashon of the Pasuk, as we will explain shortly.

וקשה, דבכל הספרים כתיב 'והא דקאמר "את אביה" בשריפה'?

(c) Question: All the texts read 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah' (and not 'bi'Sekilah')?

ויש לומר, דנותן טעם במה טעה התנא, ששנה 'את אביה בשריפה', כיון שהיא בסקילה?

(d) Answer (Part 1): The Gemara is merely explaining the Tana's mistake in stating ' es Avihah bi'Sereifah, since in actual fact, she receives Sekilah.

ומשני - 'סירכא נקט', סירכיה דקרא דכתיב "את אביה היא מחללת, באש תשרף".

(e) Explanation (continued): And the Gemara answers that the Tana Kama is merely following the Lashon of the Pasuk, which writes "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles, ba'Eish Tisaref".

ומיהו קשה, דלא יהיב טעמא אלא אמאי נקט 'את אביה בשריפה', אבל ב'את חמיה' לא יהיב טעמא?

(f) Question: The Gemara gives a reason as to why the Tana says 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', but not why he says 'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah'?

וי"ל, דהא דקתני 'את אביה בשריפה' הכא סירכא נקט, משום דבעלמא בתו בשריפה, וכלתו בסקילה.

(g) Explanation: We therefore answer that the Gemara means is that it mentions 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', it is merely following the general Halachah, that a daughter receives Sereifah and a daughter-in-law, Sekilah (covering both 'Avihah' and 'Chamihah').

3) TOSFOS DH HILCH'SA LI'MESHICHA

תוספות ד"ה הלכתא למשיחא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites a Gemara in Zevachim where Rav Yosef asks the same Kashya. He then reconciles this with two Gemaros (in Kidushin and Yoma), where we rule like R. Yossi, even though they appear to be cases of 'Hilch'sa le'Mashi'ach'). Finally, they ask from a Gemara in Manachos, where R. Yochanan rules like Aba Sha'ul ben Dustai (even though the ruling has no practical ramifications. They give three answers).

בפרק ב"ש בזבחים (מה.) פריך נמי הכי.

(a) Precedent: Rav Yosef ask the same Kashya in Zevachim (in Perek Beis Shamai).

והא דפסקינן הלכה כר' יוסי, בפרק י' יוחסין (קדושין דף עב:) דעתידי' ממזרים ליטהר?

(b) Question: When we Pasken like R. Yossi in Perek Asarah Yuchsin, regarding 'Asidim Mamzerim Litaher', why does the Gemara not also ask 'Hilch'sa li'Meshicha?'

נ"מ בזה"ז שלא להתרחק ממשפחות שאינן ידועות, דבממזר שאינו ידוע מיירי.

(c) Answer: Because this ruling has practical ramifications, inasmuch as, as a result, it is not necessary to refrain from marrying into families whose Kashrus is unknown, seeing as R. Yossi is speaking about unknown Mamzerim.

ובפ"ק דיומא (ד' יג. ושם) דפסקו כרבי יוסי, ראשון חוזר לעבודתו?

(d) Question: And we can ask the same Kashya in the first Perek of Yoma, where the Gemara Paskens like R. Yossi, that the first Kohen Gadol goes back to his Avodah?

נ"מ לנשיא או פרנס שנתמנה על הציבור ועבר מחמת האונס.

(e) Answer: That ruling too, has practical ramifications regarding a president or a community leader who has been removed from his post due to an Oneis, and who later becomes fit.

מיהו בס"פ התכלת (מנחות נב. ושם) קשה, דפסק ר' יוחנן כאבא שאול בן דוסתאי?

(f) Question: The problem will remain however, regarding the Gemara in Menachos, where R. Yochanan rules like Aba Sha'ul ben Dustai (even though there are no practical ramifications nowadays)?

ונראה, דרב יוסף פריך דוקא הכי הכא ובפ' ב"ש (זבחים ד' מה.).

(g) Answer #1: It therefore seems that it is specifically Rav Yosef who asks the Kashya here and in Perek Beis Shamai, but that the other Amora'im do not hold like him.

והר"ר חיים פירש דלא פריך אלא היכא דאיכא תרתי - שהוא למשיחא, וגם עושה איסורא, כיון דליכא נפקותא אלא על ידי איסור, אין לפסוק הלכה למשיחא שיהיו כולם צדיקים.

(h) Answer #2: R. Chayim however, answers that the Gemara only asks the Kashya there where there two points against the ruling - 1. That it will only applicable in the time of Mashi'ach, and 2. That the ruling entails transgressing an Isur, since the ruling will then not even apply in the time of Mashi'ach , when all the people will be righteous.

ונ"ל, דלא פריך אלא הכא, דלא נ"מ אלא ליישב לישני דשמעתין כדמסיק; אבל הנך יש נפקותא לאיסור והיתר, אף על גב דהוי למשיחא.

(i) Answer #3: It seems to the author of this Tosfos however, that the Gemara only asks the Kashya here, where the Gemara is merely coming to reconcile a problem in the Sugya, as the Gemara concludes; But not where there are Halachic ramifications - even if they will only take effect in the time of Mashi'ach.

4) TOSFOS DH LE'ACHIV VE'LO LA'ACHOSO

תוספות ד"ה לאחיו ולא לאחותו

תימה, ת"ל מדכתיב "היא", 'ולא בועלה', "היא", 'ולא זוממיה'?

(a) Question: We already know that from "Hi", 've'Lo Bo'alah', "Hi", 've'Lo Zomemehah'.

וי"ל, דאי מ"היא" לחודא, לא הוה ממעטינן זוממים, משום דבעינן "כאשר זמם", קמ"ל "לאחיו", ולא לאחותו; ואי מהתם, ה"א, ה"מ היכא דמעידין נמי על הבועל.

(b) Answer: From "Hi" alone, we would have not have excluded Zomemin, since we need to fulfil "Ka'asher Zamam"; Therefore the Torah writes "le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso'. On the other hand, were it not for "le'Achiv", we sould have thought that they are only Chayav there where they testify on the Bo'el as well.

5) TOSFOS DH VE'R. YISHMAEL SAVAR MI'DE'KA'AMAR LEIH BAS U'BAS ...

תוספות ד"ה ורבי ישמעאל סבר מדקא"ל בת ובת ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain how R. Yishmael Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas", according to R. Akiva, even though he does not learn the Gezeirah-Shavah [of "Avihah" "Avihah"], and we initially think that "Bas" "u'Bas" comes to preclude the Gezeirah-Shavah).

וא"ת, היכי ס"ד דהדר ביה, דאם כן, "בת" "ובת" למה ליה, דהא לא אתא "בת ובת" אלא לאפוקי מג"ש?

(a) Question: How can he think that R. Akiva retracted from the Gezeirah-Shavah, seeing as, if he did, what does he do with "Bas" "u'Bas", which only comes to preclude from the Gezeirah-Shavah?

וי"ל, דלא תימא דוקא ארוסה, מדינא דלעיל - דמה כשהוציא בת ישראל לסקילה, ארוסה ולא נשואה.

(b) Answer: R. Yishmael holds that, according to R. Akiva, "Bas" "u'Bas" comes to prevent us from saying that when the Pasuk sentences a Bas Yisrael to the Din of Sekilah, it is confined to an Arusah but not a Nesu'ah. From "Bas" "u'Bas" we learn that the same applies to a Nesu'ah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF