1) TOSFOS DH AD'RABAH ISHAH DE'URCHAH ...

תוספות ד"ה אדרבה אשה דאורחה כו'

הא פשיטא בכולה הש"ס, דבאשה מתחייב א'שני משכבות, ד"משכבי אשה" כתיב.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): Throughout Shas, the Gemara takes for granted that in the case of a woman, one is Chayav for two Mishkavos, since the Torah writes "Mishk'vei Ishah".

אלא רב פפא ה"ק - אם יש לחלק בין אשה לבהמה, איפכא הוה ליה למימר.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): What Rav Papa means to say is that if needs to draw a distinction between a woman and an animal, then it ought to be the other way round.

2) TOSFOS DH ZEH K'LONO MERUBEH (1)

תוספות ד"ה זה קלונו מרובה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi's first explanation [but not the second one] - that Abaye disagrees with Rav Sheishes, since Abaye appears to be coming to resolve the Kashya on Rav Sheishes. They also query the basis of Rashi's explanation - that Rav Sheishes learns from the fact that trees require burning due to Takalah alone, that a Nochri who raped an animal is Chayav too, since we can query that by drawing a distinction between animals and trees, as the Gemara learns later in the Sugya. Consequently, Tosfos conclude, Rav Sheishes proof lies in the Gemara's comparison between Yisrael and Nochri regarding trees).

פ"ה' דס"ל לאביי דבעינן תקלה וקלון, ולית ליה דרב ששת דמחייב בהמה הנרבעת לעובד כוכבים.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Abaye requires both 'Takalah' and 'Kalon'. He does not concur with Rav Sheishes, who sentences to death an animal that is raped by a Nochri (even though there is no Kalon).

א"נ אית ליה, אלא דס"ל מתוך שקלונו מרובה, איכא קלון לעובד כוכבים, ומאילנות לא גמיר.

(b) Explanation #2: Alternatively, he does concur with Rav Sheishes, only, he holds, since the Kalon of raping is so great, there is Kalon by a Nochri, and he does not learn from trees.

ופי' דוחק, דמשמע דלשנויי מילתא דרב ששת בא, דמחייב אע"ג דליכא קלון לעובד כוכבים.

(c) Question #1: Rashi's explanation however, is Dachuk, since the Gemara implies that Abaye is coming to reconcile the oopinion of Rav Sheishes, who sentences to death even though there is no Kalon by a Nochri.

ועוד קשה, היאך פשיט רב ששת מאילנות שטעונין שריפה משום תקלה לחודא, הכי נמי לבהמה שרבעה עובד כוכבי'?

(d) Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, how can Rav Sheishes learn from the fact that trees require burning due to Takalah alone, that a Nochri who raped an animal is Chayav too?

הא ודאי פשיטא דאיכא למימר 'משתחוה לבהמה תוכיח', דאיכא תקלה לחודה ושריא, כדמסיק 'משום דחס רחמנא אבעלי חיים', וה"ה ברביעה, דליכא למילף מאילנות?

(e) It is obvious that one can refute this proof from 'Someone who bows down to an animal' (where there is Takalah but no Kalon), who is Patur, since the Torah takes pity on animals - as the Gemara concludes. By the same token, one cannot learn 'Revi'ah' from 'Trees' either (for the very same reason)?

וי"ל, דהכי פשיט - כי היכי דגבי אילנות השוה הכתוב של עובד כוכבים לשל ישראל, אע"ג דבישראל איכא תקלה וקלון, ובשל עובד כוכבים ליכא אלא תקלה לחוד, ה"נ גבי בהמה יש להשוות נרבע דעובד כוכבים לנרבע דישראל, אע"ג דבישראל איכא תקלה וקלון ובעובד כוכבים ליכא אלא תקלה לחודה.

(f) Explanation #3: What Rav Sheishes therefore learns from 'Trees' is that just as by 'Trees' the Pasuk compares the Din of a Nochri to that of a Yisrael, despite the fact that by a Yisrael there is Takalah and Kalon, whereas by a Nochri, there is only Takalah, so too, by 'Revi'ah', the Nochri ought to be Chayav, even though there is only Takalah - like a Yisrael, by whom there is Takalah and Kalon.

3) TOSFOS DH ZEH K'LONO MERUBEH (2)

תוספות ד"ה זה קלונו מרובה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos now explain the continuation of the Sugya according to their above explanation: a. Why an animal belonging to a Nochri does not become forbidden if is worshipped by its owner; b. Why indeed the animal of a Yisrael that is worshipped by its owner does not become forbidden because of Takalah alone).

ופריך, 'עובד כוכבים המשתחוה לבהמתו תתסר, וניקטלה משום תקלה לחודה'?

(a) Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara then asks that, if that is so, then a Nochri who bows down to his animal ought to render it Chayav, on account of Takalah?

ומשני, 'ומי איכא מידי ... '; הא לא אסרינן נרבעת לעובד כוכבים אלא כדי להשוותה לנרבעת לישראל.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): To which the Gemara replies that if something is not forbidden by a Yisrael, then it is not forbidden by a Nochri either, especially since our Sugya only forbid an animal that has been raped by a Nochri, in order to compare it to the equivalent case of a Yisrael.

ופריך 'ישראל גופיה תיתסר', מידי דהוה ארביעה, וכיון דנאסור נעבד דישראל משום תקלה וקלון כמו ברביעה, נאסור נמי נעבד לעובד כוכבים אפילו משום תקלה לחודה?

(c) Clarification (Part 3): The Gemara then asks that the animal of a Yisrael himself ought to be forbidden, like one that has been raped by him? And since an animal that has been worshipped by a Yisrael is forbidden because of Takalah and Kalon, that of a Nochri ought to be forbidden, even though there is only Takalah.

ומשני 'זה קלונו מרובה' אין ללמוד נעבד דישראל מנרבע לישראל, דנרבע לישראל קלונו מרובה, ונעבד דישראל תקלה איכא וקלון מרובה ליכא.

(d) Clarification (Part 4): And the Gemara answers 'that one cannot learn 'Ne'evzad of a Yisrael from 'Nirva' of a Yisrael, because by 'Nirva' there is a lot of Kalon, whereas by 'Ne'evad' of a Yisrael there is Takalah but not a lot of Kalon.

55b----------------------------------------55b

4) TOSFOS DH VE'CHAYAVIN ALEHAH MISHUM EISHES ISH

תוספות ד"ה וחייבין עליה משום א"א

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query Rashi, who establishes the case where her father had already accepted Kidushin on his daughter's behalf, from the Seifa of the Beraisa and from the Gemara in Kidushin. They therefore establish all the cases in the wake of Kidushei Bi'ah in the Reisha, with the main Chidush being 'Ba Alehah Yavam, Kan'ah'. They query that from the Gemara in 'Ben Sorer u'Moreh', but they both answer the Kashya, and resolve the Kashya on it from answer there 'Chayavin Alehah Korban'. Finally, Tosfos now explain the conclusion of the Sugya in ben Sorer u'Moreh. Finally, they cite a third explanation of 'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish from the Riva.).

פ"ה, אם קיבל אביה קדושין.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case where her father received Kidushin on her behalf.

וקשה, דמסיפא שמעי' לה, דתני 'בא עליה אחד מכל עריות', דדייקינן מינה 'אפילו בהמה'?

(b) Question #1: We already know that (her Bi'ah is a considered Bi'ah) from the Seifa which states 'Ba alehah Echad mi'Kol Arayos ... ', from which we extrapolate 'even an animal' (how much more so will she subject to Eishes Ish [Tosfos Ha'Rosh]).

ועוד, בפ"ק דקידושין (דף י. ושם) דבעו למיפשט דביאה אירוסין עושה ולא נשואין עושה - מדקתני 'מתקדשת בביאה', ובתר הכי קתני 'נשאת'. וממאי, דילמא 'נשאת' אקדושי כסף קאי, כמו 'וחייבים עליה משום א"א'?

(c) Question #2: Furthermore, in the first Perek of Kidushin, the Gemara tries to learn from 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah (in the Beraisa) that Bi'ah makes Erusin and not Nisu'in, since the Tana says later 'Niseis'. (According to Rashi) what is the proof; Perhaps 'Niseis' refers to Kidushei Kesef, just like 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish' does?

וי"ל, דכולה אקידושי ביאה דרישא קאי, ומשום 'בא עליה יבם קנאה' איצטריכא ליה, דלא תימא קנאה מדרבנן, כמו בן תשע דסיפא דלא קני מדאוריי' אלא כמאמר בעלמא, כדאיתא בשילהי האשה רבה (יבמות דף צו.).

(d) Explanation #2: All the cases refer to Kidushei Bi'ah of the Reisha, which in turn, needs to be mentioned because of 'Ba Alehah Yavam, Kan'ah - so that one should not say that he only acquires the Yevamah mi'de'Rabbanan, like the case of a ben-Tesha in the Seifa, who does not acquire the Yevamah min ha'Torah, only like Ma'amar (mi'de'Rabbanan), as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Ishah Rabah'.

ומיהו קשה, דלקמן בפ' בן סורר (דף סט.) דייק מהכא ד'הולכין בדיני נפשות אחר הרוב', מדקתני 'וחייבין עליה משום א"א' .ואמאי, דילמא איילונית היא, ואדעתא דהכי לא קדיש?

(e) Question (Part 1): Later in Perek Ben Sorer u'Moreh, the Gemara extrapolates that we follow the majority (even) in matters that concern the death-sentence, from 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', even though she might be an Aylonis, whom he did not betroth under such circumstances ('Ada'ta de'Hachi Lo Kadish')?

הא אפילו הראשון אדעתא דהכי קדיש, ה"מ למיפרך - אמאי חייבין, דאיילונית לאו בת יבום היא?

(f) Question (Part 2): But even if he did ('Ada'ta de'Hachi Kadish'), the Gemara could have asked why one is Chayav in the case of Yavam, seeing as an Aylonis is not subject to Yibum?

ומיבום לא פריך, דהל"ל דאדעתא דהכי לא מייבם?

1. Observation: The Gemara did not ask from Yavam directly, seeing as it could easily have answered that the Yavam did not perform Yibum on the understanding that she was an Aylonis?

וי"ל, דנקט 'אדעתא דהכי לא קדיש', משום דפריך עלה גם מסיפא - ד'בא עליה אחד מכל עריות'.

(g) Answer: The Gemara needed to say 'Ada'ta de'Hachi Lo Kadish' because it asked the same Kashya from the Seifa 'Ba Alehah Echad mi'Kol Arayos'.

ולמאי דמשני 'וחייבין עליה קרבן', לא אסיק אדעתיה מסיפא.

1. Observation: When the Gemara answers there that 'Chayavin Alehah' refers to Korban (and not to Misah), it did not think about the Seifa at that point.

ובתר הכי פריך, ומשני 'דקבליה עילויה'

2. Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Ben Sorer u'Moreh then queries the previous answer (that 'Chayavin Alehah' refers to Korban) and concludes that the Beraisa is speaking where the first husband accepted the Kidushin even if she is an Aylonis.

מכל מקום, ההוא דא"א כדשנינן 'חייבין עליה בקרבן';

3. Clarification (Part 2): Nevertheless, 'Chayavin' in the case of Eishes Ish means 'Chayavin be'Korban' as we explained.

א"נ דקבל עליה היבם ולא ראשון, דאם תמצא איילונית תתקדש לו מ"מ בביאתו

4. Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, it speaks where (not the first man, but) the Yavam accepted the Kidushin (meaning that if she turns out to be an Aylonis, he will betroth her from scratch).

וריב"א פירש, דנקט ד'חייבים עליה משום אשת איש', וה"ה לכל עריות, כדי לאשמועינן מחמתו סיפא - אפילו בהמה; דמסיפא גרידא לא הוה שמעינן בהמה, דהוה אמרינן גבי בהמה לא חשיב ביאתה ביאה.

(h) Explanation #3: The Riva explains that the Tana mentions 've'Chayavin Alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', which it learns on account of the Seifa, which includes all Arayos, which in turn, it learns in order to add 'Afilu Beheimah'. From the Seifa alone we would not have known this, since we would have thought that the Bi'ah of a Bi'ah is not considered a Bi'ah.

תדע, דגבי בן ט' דקתני 'ואם בא על אחת מכל עריות' - אפ"ה קתני 'בהמה' בהדיא - 'ופוסל את הבהמה ונסקלת על ידו'.

(i) Proof: Like we see regarding a ben-Tish'ah, in connection with whom the Tana writes that in the event that he has relations with one of the Arayos ... 'Mumsin al'Yado', yet the Tana mentions Beheimah independently.

וניחא לפירושו, דלא קתני גבי קטנה 'ופוסלת את הבהמה ונסקלת על ידה'.

(j) Observation: According to the Riva, it is clear as to why the Tana does not insert 'u'Poseles es ha'Beheimsah ve'Niskeles al-Yadah' by Ketanah (like it did in the Reisha).

5) TOSFOS DH NISEIS LE'KOHEN

תוספות ד"ה נשאת לכהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two reasons to explain as to why a girl under three who is married to a Kohen may not eat Terumah, even it initially seems that neither the reason given by Ula [Shema Tashkeh ... ] nor that of Simpon ought to apply here, seeing as she is married).

אבל פחותה מבת ג' לא אכלה.

(a) Clarification: But if she is under three, she dos not eat Terumah ...

אע"ג דליכא למיחש לדעולא ולא לסמפון, דהא נישאת?

(b) Implied Question: Even though neither the concern of Ula (that she might give her siblings a cup containing Terumah) nor that he may cancel the Kidushin due to Mum (Simpon) that he discovers, ought to apply, seeing as she is married.

כיון דלאו בת ביאה היא חוזרת לבית אביה ולא בדיק לה.

(c) Answer #1: Nevertheless, since she is too small to make Bi'ah, she returns to her father's house, without her husband having examined her (in which case both concerns are in fact, applicable).

ועוד, דכיון ד'נשאת' א'מתקדשת בביאה' קאי, כדאמר בפ"ק דקידושין (דף י.), אם כן, פחות מבת ג' דקידושי ביאה דידה לאו קידושי, נישואין נמי לא מהני.

(d) Answer #2: Moreover, since 'Niseis' refers to 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah' (as the Gemara in the first Perek of Kidushin explains), seeing as the Kidushin via Bi'ah of a girl under three is invalid, her Nisu'in is not valid either.

6) TOSFOS DH VE'EINO MA'ACHIL

תוספות ד"ה ואינו מאכיל

(SUMMARY: After refuting Rashi, who interprets this with reference to regular Kidushin, Tosfos interprets it with regard to a Yavam and a Yevamah).

פי' בקונט', אם היה כהן ובא עליה לשם קידושין, אינו מאכיל.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if he is a Kohen and he performs Bi'ah with her in order to betroth her, he is not permitted to feed her.

וקשה, דאין זה תלוי בביאה אלא משום דקידושי קטן לאו קידושין.

(b) Question: The reason for this ruling has nothing to do with the Bi'ah, but rather because a Katan is not subject to Kidushin.

ויש לפרש, דאינו מאכיל ביבמתו קאמר, אע"פ שזקוקה ועומדת.

(c) Explanation #2: It therefore appears that 've'Eino Ma'achil' refers to a Yavam (of nine years), who does not feed his Yevamah, even though she is Zekukah to him (and does not require Kidushin).

7) TOSFOS DH VE'EINO NOSEN GET AD SHE'YAGDIL

תוספות ד"ה ואינו נותן גט עד שיגדיל

בהגדיל לחוד לא סגי ליה בגט, דביאת בן ט' כמאמר שוייה רבנן, וצריכה גט למאמרו וחליצה לזיקתו.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): With 'Higdil' alone, a Get will not suffice, since the Rabbanan rendered the Bi'ah of a nine-year old like Ma'amar, in which case she will require a Get for the Ma'amar and Chalitzah for the Zikah. Only when

אלא לכשיגדיל יבעול ויתן גט. הכי מפרש בפ' יוצא דופן (נדה דף מה.)

(b) Clarification (Part 2): Only when he grows up he should perform Bi'ah and then give her a Get (as the Gemara explains in Perek Yotzei Dofen).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF