1) TOSFOS DH LACHLOTZ TEFILIN

תוספות ד"ה לחלוץ תפילין

פ"ה, של ר' אליעזר.

(a) Clarification: R. Eliezer's Tefilin, Rashi explains.

אע"ג דלא היה ר"א זז ממקום אחד ...

(b) Implied Question: Even though R. Eliezer did move from his place?

קרי ליה איסור שבות, דכל שאסרו חכמים לצאת בו לרשות הרבים אסור לצאת בו לחצר, וה"ה אפי' יושב במקום א', אסור.

(c) Answer: The Gemara nevertheless referred to it as an Isur Sh'vus, because whatever the Rabbanan forbade going out into the street is forbidden to go out with it even into the Chatzer, and even to remain with it in one place.

2) TOSFOS DH HE'ACH MINICHIN ISUR SEKILAH

תוספות ד"ה היאך מניחין איסור סקילה

(SUMMARY: On the understanding that R. Eliezer scolded his son Hurkenos for attempting to remove his [r. Eliezer's] Tefilin before kindling the Shabbos lights, Tosfos extrapolates that one first kindles the lights and then removes one's Tefilin. After proving from the Sugya in 'Bameh Madlikin' that the reverse is Halachah, and expressing surprise that Hurkanus should not know his own family Minhag, they reinterpret R. Eliezer motive for scolding his son Hurkenus).

משמע דמדליקין ואחר כך חולצין.

(a) Clarification: This implies that one kindles the Shabbos lights before removing one's Tefilin.

וקשה, דבפרק במה מדליקין (שבת דף לה: ושם) משמע איפכא, דתניא 'שלישית להדליק את הנר, דברי רבי נתן. ר' יהודה (הנשיא) אומר, 'שלישית לחלוץ תפילין, ופ"ה התם, ומדליק ברביעית?

(b) Question #1: In Perek Bameh Madlikin however, implies the opposite. The Beraisa there states that according to R. Nasan, the third trumpet blast was a signal to kindle the Shabbos lights, whereas according to R. Yehudah (ha'Nasi), it was to remove one's Tefilin; and Rashi there explains that one kindles the Shabbos lights at the fourth blast.

ואין לומר ומדליק בשניה ...

(c) Suggested Answer #1: In any event, one cannot learn that one kindles the lights at the second bast ...

מדקאמר התם בתר הכי 'שניה להדליק כמאן - לא כר' נתן ולא כרבי יהודה הנשיא?

(d) Refutation: Because the Gemara asks there 'The second one to light - like whom does this go, neither like R. Nasan nor like R. Yehudah ha'Nasi?!'

וגם אין לומר שמדליק בשלישית, וה"ק 'שלישית אף לחלוץ תפילין', ולעולם מדליק ברישא ...

(e) Suggested Answer #2: Nor can we explain that one kindles the lights at the third blast, and what the Beraisa means is that one also removes one's Tefilin too at the third blast ...

מדקאמר התם 'שלישית להדליק' ומוקי לה כרבי נתן, ולא כרבי יהודה הנשיא?

(f) Refutation: Since the Gemara there establishes its statement there that the third blast is a signal to kindle the lights like R. Nasan, and not like R. Yehudah haNasi.

ועוד קשה, אטו הורקנוס לא ידע מנהגו?

(g) Question #2: How can Hurkenus possibly not have known his own family Minhag?

וי"ל, דודאי תפילין ברישא, אלא שבאותה שעה איחרו להדליק מפני שהיו טרודין בחוליו, ולכך היה גוער בו.

(h) Answer: There is no question that one first removes one's Tefilin, only it so happened that, due to their having been busy with R. Eliezer's sickness, they were now late with kindling the Shabbos lights, and that is why R. Eliezer scolded Hurkenus (not because he he erred by wanting to remove his Tefilin before kindling the lights).

3) TOSFOS DH VE'TAHARASAN BE'MAH SHE'HEIN

תוספות ד"ה וטהרתן במה שהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concur with Rashi interpretation of the Machlokes - whether what is inside vessels that tore is considered a Chatzitzah or not. Although there is no specific Machlokes regarding this point anywhere, we do find a Mishnah in Keilim and a Tosefta that argue over it).

פ"ה, דנחלקו לענין טבילה בנקרעו, אי חוצץ מה שבתוכו או לא.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): Rashi establishes the Machlokes with regard to Tevilah of leather vessels that are torn, as to whether what is inside them is considered a Chatzitzah or not.

ובהדיא לא אשכחן פלוגתא, אלא בפ' כ"ג דכלים תנן 'הכדור והאימוס והקמיע ותפילין שנקרעו, הנוגע בהן טמא, במה שבתוכו טהור'. אלמא, אין תוכו חשוב חיבור.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): We do not find a specific Machlokes in this point. However, on the one hand, the Mishnah in Keilim declares Tamei anyone who touches a ball, a shoemaker's last, a Kame'ah or Tefilin that tore, but Tahor, should they touch whatever is inside them, clearly indicating that the inside of these objects is not considered joined to them ...

ותניא בתוספתא 'ר' יהושע ב"ק אומר משום ר' אליעזר 'אף מטבילין כמו שהן', אלמא מדלא חייץ בטבילה ש"מ דהוי חיבור.

(c) Clarification (Part 3): Whereas in the Tosefta, R. Yehoshua ben Korchah citing R. Eliezer, permits Toveling them as they are, from which we can extrapolate that, since the inside is not a Chatzitzah, they are considered joined.

4) TOSFOS DH HAYAH MAKEH BI'VESARO

תוספות ד"ה היה מכה בבשרו

ומשום "שרט לנפש" (ויקרא יט) ליכא ...

(a) Implied Question: There was no question of the Isur of "ve'Seret la'Nefesh" (making cuts on oneself as a sign of mourning) ...

דמשום תורה קעביד, כדאמר 'הרבה מעות יש לי, ואין לי שולחני להרצותן'.

(b) Answer: Since he did it on account of the Torah that was lost, as he himself said 'I have a lot o money, but (now) I have no banker with whom to check it!'

HADRAN ALACH 'ARBA MISOS

68b----------------------------------------68b

PEREK BEN SORER U'MOREH

5) TOSFOS DH BEN HA'SAMUCH LI'GEVURASO

תוספות ד"ה (בן סורר ומורה) בן הסמוך לגבורתו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explain how we know that this refers to three months before Gadlus and not a year and then why the Mishnah finds it necessary to add the reason 'she'Lo Ba ki'Kelal Mitzvos'. Based on the Gemara in 'Mi She'Meis', Tosfos query the fact that a Katan can own money, even where others placed the money into his R'shus, seeing as there is an opinion there that even this is not possible. And they prove from the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a that even according to those who hold that one can, this is only mi'de'Rabbanan [whilst we are talking about the Din d'Oraysa]).

וא"ת, דילמא שנה שלפני גדלות, כדאשכחן (נדה דף מו.) במופלא הסמוך לאיש - לענין נדרים?

(a) Question: Perhaps this means one year before reaching the age of Gadlus, like we find with regard to Nedarim, with regard to a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish'.

ומפר"ת דהכא דריש "לאיש" דמשמע לשון גבורה, כדכתיב (מ"א ב) "וחזקת והיית לאיש".

(b) Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara here is Darshening the word "le'Ish", which implies 'strength', like the Pasuk in Melachim, where David ha'Melech told his young son Sh'lomoh "ve'Chazakta ve'Hayisa le'Ish".

וא"ת, א"כ למה לן במתני' טעמא ד'שלא בא לכלל מצות'?

(c) Question: Then why does the Mishnah give the reason as 'she'Lo Ba ki'Kelal Mitzvos'?

וי"ל, דהוה אמינא דמקודם הבאת שערות מתחיל הזמן ד'סמוך לגבורתו של איש', ואפי' הוי יותר מג' חדשים, לא הוה חיישינן במה שבימי קטנות, כיון דאינו ראוי להוליד דקרינא ביה 'בן' ולא אב.

(d) Answer: We would otherwise have thought that the time of 'Samuch li'Gevurado shel Ish' begins already before his pubic hair has grown, and even if the time-period extends beyond three months, it would not have mattered if it began from the days of Katnus, seeing as he is not fit to have children, and will therefore fit into the category of 'Ben ve'Lo Av'.

6) TOSFOS DH KATAN I ATAH TZRARICH LACHZOR ...

תוספות ד"ה קטן אי אתה צריך לחזור (עליו) ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos initially discuss how it is possible for a Katan to posses Mamon. They then cite a Gemara in Gitin ['Tz'ror ve'Zorko ... '], which implies that a Katan is Zocheh mi'd'Oraysa, even where he is Zocheh on behalf of others. [according to Rav Asi]. However they confine that to where 'Da'as Acheres Maknek Oso', whereas the Mishnah in 'ha'Nizakin' which render the findings of a Cheresh and a Katan Koneh only on account of Darkei Shalom speaks where there is no Da'as Acheres. Finally, based on the Machlokes between Rav Asi and his bar P'lugta in Gitin, they explain the Gemara in Succah, which forbids one to be Makneh one's Lulav to a Katan on the first day of Succos, and use that as one of two ways to explain the Gemara in Kidushin, which forbids a Katan).

וא"ת ומנא ליה להאי קטן ממונא; האמרי' בפרק מי שמת (ב"ב דף קנז.) 'אין זכייה לקטן'?

(a) Question: From where does this Katan have Mamon, seeing as the Gemara says in Perek Mi She'Meis that a Katan cannot acquire?

ואי בשזיכו לו ע"י אחר ...

(b) Suggested Answer: Perhaps our Sugya is speaking in a case where others placed the money into his R'shus?

הא איכא למ"ד בפ' מי שמת 'זכין לגדול ואין זכין לקטן'?

(c) Refutation #1: There is however, an opinion in Perek Mi she'Meis that holds that one may only be Zocheh on behalf of a Gadol, but not on behalf of a Katan.

ואפי' למ"ד 'זכין לקטן' היינו מדרבנן, ולא מדאורייתא ...

(d) Refutation #2: And even according to those who maintain that one may, that is only mi'de'Rabbanan, but not mi'd'Oraysa ...

דזכייה מתורת שליחות, כדמוכח בפ"ק דבבא מציעא (דף י. ע"ש) דאמרי' 'חצר משום ידה איתרבי, ולא גרע משליחות' - וקטן לאו בר שליחות הוא.

(e) Reason: This is because Zechiyah (via others) is a branch of Shelichus, as is evident in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a, where the Gemara says that 'Chatzer has the Din of Yad, and is therefore not worse than Shelichus - and a Katan is not subject to Shelichus.

ומיהו, בפ' התקבל (גיטין דף סד: ושם) גבי 'צרור וזורקו, אגוז ונוטלו - זוכה לעצמו ואין זוכה לאחרים; חפץ, ומחזירו לאחר שעה - זוכה בין לעצמו בין לאחרים', משמע דהיינו מדאורייתא ...

(f) Explanation #1 (Part 1): In Perek Hiskabel however, regarding (where someone gives a Katan) 'Tz'ror ve'Zorko, Egoz ve'Notlo', Rav Asi rules 'Zocheh le'Atzmo, ve'Ein Zocheh la'Acherim; Cheifetz, u'Machziro le'Achar Sha'ah, Zocheh bein le'Atzmo bein la'Acherim', implying that he acquires even mi'd'Oraysa ... (see Maharam).

מדפריך למ"ד 'אחד זה וא' זה זוכה לעצמו ואין זוכה לאחרים', מההיא ד'מערימין על מעשר שני', דמשמע דזוכה לאחרים מדאורייתא?

(g) Explanation #2 (Part 2): Since the Gemara queries the opinion that holds 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Zocheh le'Atzmo ve'Ein Zocheh la'Acherim' from the case of 'Ma'arimin al Ma'aser Sheini', implying that, according to Rav Asi, a Katan acquires for others even mi'd'Oraysa?

והא דתנן בהנזקין (שם דף נט:) 'מציאת חרש וקטן יש בהן גזל מפני דרכי שלום, אבל מדאורייתא לא' ...

(h) Implied Question: And the reason that the Mishnah in 'ha'Nizakin' says that he findings of a Cheresh and a Katan are subject to Gezel on account of Darkei Shalom and not mi'd'Oraysa ...

דעת אחרת מקנה אותן שאני.

(i) Answer: Is because it is not a case of 'Da'as Acheres Makneh', like the Gemara in Gitin.

והשתא ניחא הא דאמר בפ' לולב וערבה (סוכה דף מו:) 'לא ליקני איניש לוליביה לינוקא, דינוקא - מיקנא קני אקנויי לא מקני ...

1. Observation (Part 1): Now the Gemara in 'Lulav va'Aravah', which forbids giving one's Lulav to a child on Succos, because he acquires but cannot be Makneh, makes good sense ...

דמיקנא קני אפילו מדאורייתא, דע"י דעת אחר' מקנה אותן זוכה מדאורייתא לאחרים, לרב אסי דגיטין, ולעצמו לכולי עלמא.

2. Observation (Part 2): Because, he acquires even mi'd'Oraysa (due to 'Da'as Acheres Makneh'), even on behalf of others, according to Rav Asi in Gitin, and for himself according to everybody

והא דאמר בריש פ"ב דקידושין (דף מב. ושם) 'איש זוכה ואין קטן זוכה'?

3. Implied Question: And why the Gemara in Kidushin then says that a man can be Zocheh but not a Katan ...

היינו דאין ממנה אחרים על פסחו.

4. Answer #1: That is because he cannot appoint others on his Korban Pesach.

אי נמי, שאין זוכה לאחרים קאמר, אע"ג דדעת אחרים מקנה אותן, ודלא כרב אסי.

5. Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara means that he cannot be Zocheh on behalf of others, not like R. Asi.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first queries the Gemara's proof in Gitin that a Katan can acquire on behalf of others min ha'Torah, from the fact that he can redeem Ma'aser on behalf of others, seeing as it cannot speak where Da'as Acheres Makneh. They then cite a Yerushalmi, which implies that a Katan acquires min ha'Torah, if he is a ben Da'as, though, according to the majority text, the Bavli in 'Eizehu Neshech', disagrees. They present two other ways in which a Katan can own property min ha'Torah, and finally, they offer two explanations as to how it is possible to bring an Asham Gezeilos for stealing from a Katan and swearing falsely, even though there is no Shevu'ah on the claim of a Chashu. Tosfos now discuss in detail how a Katan Nochri can convert, a. if we hold that a Katan can acquire min ha'Torah, b. if we hold that he can't. Tosfos asks from the Gemara in Kesuvos, which authorizes Beis-Din to Tovel a Ger Katan, and that when they do, he becomes a fully-fledged Yisrael in all regards. And they give two reasons refuting the suggestion that this is due to the right of Beis-Din to uproot a Torah law. They therefore conclude that it is not Beis-Din who acquire on behalf of a Ger Katan, but the Ger himself. Tosfos retract from their original stance, that Beis-Din acquire Geirim through Toveling them, but conclude that Geirim acquire themselves through Milah and Tevilah [despite the Gemara's expression in this connection 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav'], since these are performed on their bodies, and prove from Har Sinai that this extends even to Ketanim. Tosfos finally cite the Gemara in Kidushin, where Rebbi Shimon, citing a Pasuk in Matos, permits a Ketanah who converted before the age of three even to marry a Kohen, because 'her virginity was sown when she was already a Yisre'eilis' - even though a Ger Katan who converts has the right yo retract the moment he grows-up).

וא"ת, והיאך מדקדק בגיטין דזוכה לאחרים מדפודה מעשר שני לאחרים, והלא אפי' לעצמו לא זכי מדאורייתא כשאין דעת אחרים מקנה אותן, ובחילול מעשר, מי איכא דעת אחרת מקנה לאחרים ע"י זכיית קטן?

(j) Question: How can the Gemara in Gitin extrapolate that a Katan can acquire on behalf of others min ha'Torah (like R. Asi), from the fact that he is permitted to redeem Ma'aser Sheini on behalf of others, seeing as even for himself, he does not acquire min ha'Torah without Da'as Acheres Makneh Osan', and with regard to redeeming Ma'aser Sheini, there is no such case of Da'as Acheres Makneh for others through the Kinyan of a Katan?

וי"ל, דקסבר המקשה דכמו שזוכה לעצמו בחילול מעשר מן התורה מחמת דמופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא, כמו כן זוכה לאחרים מן התורה.

(k) Answer: The questioner thought that just as with regard to redeeming Ma'aser a Katan who is Mufla le'Ish (close to the age of Gadlus) can redeem his own Ma'aser min ha'Torah, so too, can he do so on behalf of others min ha'Torah (see Maharam).

וקצת משמע בירושלמי בפרק חלון, דאם הוא בן דעת אית ליה זכייה מדאורייתא, דאמרינן 'רבנן דקיסרי אמרי "כאן בתינוק שיש בו דעת כאן בתינוק שאין בו דעת" '.

(l) Explanation #2: It does seem from the Yerushalmi in Perek Chalon however, that a Katan who is a ben Da'as (intelligent) acquires min ha'Torah, since, citing the Rabbanan of Caesaria, it specifically draws a distinction between a Katan who is a ben Da'as and one who is not.

ובאיזהו נשך (ב"מ דף עא) משמע דלית ליה זכייה מדאורייתא, דגרסי' ברוב ספרים 'קטן נהי דשליחות לית ליה, זכייה מדרבנן אית ליה'.

(m) The Bavli disagrees: Though the Gemara in 'Eizehu Neshech' which, according to most texts reads 'Granted that a Katan is not subject to Shelichis, he can however, acquire mi'de'Rabbanan, implies that he cannot.

ויש ספרים דלא גרסי' 'מדרבנן'.

(n) Refutation: Some Sefarim however, erase the word 'mi'de'Rabbanan' from the text.

ועוד משכחת לה שיש לו ממון לקטן, כגון שירש את אביו קודם שנתגייר, כדאמרינן בפ"ק דקידושין (דף יח.) ד'עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו דבר תורה, שנא' "כי ירושה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר".

(o) Explanation #3: There is another way for the Katan to possess money, and that is where he inherited his father before converting, and we have learned in the first Perek of Kidushin that a Nochri inherits his father min ha'Torah, as it says in Devarim " ... because I have given Har Se'ir as an inheritance to Eisav".

אי נמי, במעשה ידיו, דמלאכתו ושכר טרחו שלו מדאורייתא.

(p) Explanation #4: Alternatively, whatever he manufactures, since his work and the wages for what he worked for belong to him min ha'Torah.

וא"ת, היאך יתחייב אדם אשם על גזילו, הא אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן, כדדרשינן בהגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קו:) ובפרק שבועת הדיינים (שבועות דף מב.) "כי יתן איש", 'ואין נתינת קטן כלום'?

1. Question: How can one ever bring an Asham Gezeilos for stealing from a Katan, seeing as one does swear on the claim of a Chashu, as we Darshen in Bava Kama and in Shevu'os "ki Yiten Ish", that the giving of a Katan is of no consequence?

וי"ל, דהני מילי בטענת כפירה והודאה, אבל ע"פ עד אחד נשבעים.

2. Answer #1: That is only as regards claiming, denying and admitting, but if there is one witness, one swears even on the claim of a Chashu.

אי נמי בקופץ ונשבע.

3. Answer #2: Alternatively, where he 'jumped and swore' (without being told to by the Beis-Din).

וא"ת, והיאך נתגייר; כי אמרינן נמי דקטן אית ליה זכייה מדאורייתא, ה"מ ישראל, אבל עובד כוכבים, אמרינן באיזהו נשך (ב"מ דף עב.) דכיון דלא אתי לכלל שליחות, לית ליה זכייה אפי' מדרבנן?

4. Question: How can a Katan convert? When we say that a Katan can acquire min ha'Torah, that is specifically a Yisrael, but as far as a Nochri is concerned, the Gemara says in 'Eizehu Neshech' that since he will never enter the realm of shelichus, he cannot acquire even mi'de'Rabbanan?

ומיהו הא לאו קושיא היא, דא"כ תיקשי לן כל גרים היאך מטבילין אותן?

5. Refutation (Part 1): This is not a Kashya however, because if it was, then we could ask how it is possible to Tovel all Gerim (even grown-ups)?

אלא כיון דזכייתו וידו באין כאחד, שאני.

6. Refutation (Part 2): We must therefore say that Geirus is different since his right to acquire and his Yad come simultaneously.

אבל אי קטן לית ליה זכייה מדאורייתא, ודאי קשה, היאך נתגייר?

7. Question: But if a Katan cannot acquire min ha'Torah, the question remains - How can he convert?

וי"ל, כגון שנתגיירה אמו כשהיא מעוברת, כדאמרי' בפרק הערל (יבמות דף עח. ושם) 'אשת עובד כוכבים מעוברת שנתגיירה, בנה אין צריך טבילה'.

8. Answer (Part 1): There where the Katan's mother converted wilst she was still pregnant with him, like we say in Perek ha'Areil 'If the pregnant wife of a Nochri concerted, her son does not require Tevilah'.

ואפשר השתא דאחרי כן יורש את אמו.

9. Answer (Part 2): In such a case it is possible for the Ger to inherit his mother.

ומיהו קשה מההיא דפ"ק דכתובות (דף יא. ושם) דאמרי' 'גר קטן מטבילין אותו ע"ד ב"ד' ...

10. Question (Part 1): The Gemara says in Kidushin however, that Beis-Din Tovel a Ger Katan ...

ולכל מילי חשיב גר - להתירו בבת ישראל, וקידושיו קדושין, ובניו חולצין ומייבמין, ולכל מילי דאורייתא?

11. Question (Part 2): The Ger is then considered a Ger in all regards - to be permitted to marry a bas Yisrael, to perform Kidushin, for his children to be subject to Chalitzah and Yibum, and regarding all matters that are min ha'Torah.

ולא משמע שיהא מטעם דיש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה?

12. Implied Answer: Nor does this appear to be based on the right of Beis-Din to uproot a Torah law ...

חדא, דה"מ בשב ואל תעשה והאי קום עשה הוא.

13. Refutation #1: Firstly, because that is confined to matters of 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' (negating obligating), whereas this is 'Kum va'Asei' (performing things that are forbidden).

ועוד, מדפריך 'מאי קמ"ל, תנינא - 'זכין לאדם שלא בפניו'?

14. Refutation #2: Secondly, since the Gemara asks 'What is this coming to teach us', seeing as we have already learned that one can acquire on behalf of a person even when he is not there?'

ונראה דזכייה דגירות לא דמי לשאר זכיות, דמה שב"ד מטבילין אותו, אינם זוכין בעבורו, אלא הוא זוכה בעצמו ובגופו, שנעשה גר ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה.

15. Answer (Incorporating New Explanation (Part 1): It would therefore seem that the acquisition of Geirus is not comparable to other acquisitions, inasmuch as when Beis-Din Tovel the Ger Katan, they are not actually acquiring anything on his behalf. But it is he who acquires himself and his body, in that he becomes a Ger and enters the protection of the Shechinah.

והא דפריך בכתובות (שם) 'תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו?' ומשני, 'מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה'.

16. Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Kesuvos asks 'Tenina, Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav ' and it answers that we would otherwise have thought that Nochrim enjoy licentiousness (and it is therefore a Chov).

היינו משום דאם היתה חובתו, לא היה לב"ד להתמצע להכניס גופו בדבר שיש לו חובה.

17. Answer (Part 1): What it means is that, had it (the conversion) been to his detriment, Beis-Din would not have made efforts to bring him under the wings of the Shechinah.

ואפילו בתינוק דלאו בר דעת, חשיב גר, מדמייתי מקטנה פחותה מבת שלשה.

18. New Explanation (Part 2): Even a child, who is not a bar Da'as, is considered a Ger, since the Gemara mentions the case of a Ketanah under the age of three.

שהזכייה בעצמו הוא כדפרישית, שהמילה והטבילה בגופו.

19. Reason: This is because the acquisition takes place on the Ger's body, as we just explained, since the Milah and the Tevilah are performed on his body.

וגם מצינו שאבותינו נכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים, וכמה קטנים היו בשעת מתן תורה.

20. Proof: Indeed, we find that our fathers entered into the covenant with B'ris Milah, Tevilah and the sprinkling of the blood of Korbanos, including many Ketanim who were present at Matan Torah.

ובפרק עשרה יוחסין (קידושין דף עד.) 'אמר ר"ש "דגיורת שנתגיירה פחותה מבת שלש כשירה לכהונה, שנזרעו בתוליה בישראל'.

21. Proof (Part 1): In Perek Asarah Yuchsin, Rebbi Shimon permits a Giyores who converted before the age of three to marry a Kohen, since 'her Besulim were sown when she was already a Yisre'eilis'.

ומייתי ראיה מדכתיב בשלל מדין "וכל הטף בנשים ... ", והרי פנחס היה עמהן?

22. Proof (Part 2): The Gemara proves this from the Pasuk in Matos (in connection with the booty that they brought back from Midyan), which allowed the returning soldiers to keep for themselves as wives all the little children (under the age of the three) as wives; and this included Pinchas, who accompanied them as the Kohen Gadol for war.

ואע"ג דאמרינן בכתובות (דף יא.) 'הגדילו יכולין למחות'?

23. Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Kesuvos permits young Geirim to retract the moment they become Gedolim?

הא אמרינן דכשגדלו שעה אחת ולא מיחו, שוב אין יכולין למחות, דמועיל להו מילה וטבילה של קטנות שהיתה בגופם, ואין חסירים אלא קבלת מצות; ומתוך שגדלו ולא מיחו, היינו קבלה.

24. Answer: But the Gemara also says that if they did not retract within 'an hour' of attaining Gadlus, they can no longer retract. This is because the Milah and Tevilah on their bodies took effect even though they were only Ketanim. All that was lacking was Kabalas Mitzvos, and the fact that after the first hour, they declined to retract, that is considered Kabalas Mitzvos.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF