1)

TOSFOS DH V'LO

תוספות ד"ה ולא

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding whether the Chaveirim were Persian.)

פירש בקונטרס חבר פרסיים

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the "Chaveirim" (as referred to in our Gemara) were Persian.

ול"נ דפרסיים היו בבבל מימות כורש כדפירש"י בפ"ב דגיטין (דף יז.) וחברים בימי רבי יוחנן אתו לבבל כדאמר בהבא על יבמתו (יבמות סג:)

(b)

Question #1: It appears to me that the Persians were in Babylon during the times of Koresh, as explained by Rashi in Gitin (17a). The Chaveirim only came to Babylon during the times of Rebbi Yochanan, as stated in Yevamos (63b, indicating they are not Persian).

ועוד דאמרינן בקדושין (עב.) הראני פרסיים דומין לחיילות בית דוד הראני חברין דומין למלאכי חבלה משמע דחברי אומה אחרת היא

(c)

Question #2: Additionally, we say in Kidushin (72a) that when Rebbi asked Levi to explain what Persians look like, he said they look like the soldiers of the house of Dovid. When he asked Levi to explain what Chaveirim look like, he said they look like destructive angels. This implies that Chaveirim are not Persians.

והא דאמר בפרק ב' דגיטין (דף יז.) אתא חברא שקל שרגא מקמייהו אמר רחמנא או בטולך או בטולא דבר עשו

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Gitin (17a) says that a Chaver came and took away the candle from before them. Rabah bar bar Chanah said (as a prayer to Hash-m), "Rachmana (a name of Hash-m)! Either put us under Your shade, or under the shade of the descendants of Eisav!"

למימרא דבני אדומים מעלי מפרסיים והתניא אלהים הבין דרכה וגו' ידע הקב"ה שאין ישראל יכולים לקבל רוב גזרותיו של עשו הרשע עמד והגל' אותם לבבל

i.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara continues to ask, this implies that the Edomites are better than the Persians. Doesn't the Beraisa say, "Elokim understands its way etc." means that Hash-m knew that Bnei Yisrael could not tolerate being under the many decress of the wicked (descendants of) Eisav, and he therefore had Bnei Yisrael exiled to Babylon? (This implies that the Chaveirim were Persians!)

לאו משום דחברים היו פרסאי אלא עיקר היו הפרסיים והחברים שביניהם היו כפופין להן

2.

Answer: This was not because the Chaverim were Persians. Rather, the Persians were the main people in Babylon, and the Chaveirim amongst them were under them (and therefore the Jews did not have to worry about the Chaveirim in Babylon).

ומשני הא מקמי דאתו חברי לבבל היו פרסאי מעלו מרומאי

3.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara there continues by answering that before the Chaveirim came to Bavel the Persians were better than the Romans.

והא דקאמר או בטולך או בטולא דבר עשו בתר דאתו חברי לבבל בימי ר' יוחנן כדמוכח בהבא על יבמתו (יבמות סג:) והרשיעו את הפרסיים דרומיים מעלי מפרסאי

i.

Answer (cont.): When Rabah bar bar Chanah said, "Either put us under Your shade, or under the shade of the descendants of Eisav!" it was after the Chaveirim had already come to Babylon during the times of Rebbi Yochanan, as is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (63b) that says the Chaveirim caused the Persians to become wicked, as the Romans were better than the Persians.

ורש"י פירש שם דאתו חברי לבבל פרסיים בימי כורש ול"נ כדפרישי' דהא בימי רבי יוחנן אתו חברי ופרסיים בימי כורש וכדמוכח בקדושין (דף עב.) דלאו אומה אחת הן

(d)

Explanation #2: Rashi (ibid.) explains that the Chaveirim, who were Persians, came to Babylon during the times of Koresh. However, I maintain my explanation, as the Chaveirim came to Babylon during the time of Rebbi Yochanan while the Persians came during the times of Koresh. This is as it is apparent in Kidushin that they (Persians and Chaveirim) are not the same nation.

והר"ר יעקב מקורביל מפרש דחברים היו משרתים מפרסיים דומים למלאכי חבלה לפי שלובשים בגדים שחורים ורחבים והיינו דשקל הכומר שרגא להביא לע"ז שלהן

(e)

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Yaakov from Korvil (Bach's text: from Paris) explains that the Chaveirim were Persian priests (see Bach) who looked like angels of destruction because they wore wide black clothes. The priest took the candle away (Gitin 17a) in order to bring it to his idol (as they served their fire god, see Ya'avetz). (According to Rabeinu Yaakov, it is possible that this cult only arrived in Persia and started having Persian members in the times of Rebbi Yochanan.)

2)

TOSFOS DH KEGON ANU

תוספות ד"ה כגון אנו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara fits with Rebbi Zeira's criticism of Rebbi Yirmiyah.)

והא דאמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי ירמיה מסיר אזנו משמוע תורה וגו'

(a)

Implied Question: Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Yirmiyah, "One who removes his ear from hearing words of Torah etc." (Why would he say this if Rebbi Yirmiyah was following this Halachah?)

וי"ל תורתו היתה אומנתו

(b)

Answer #1: Rebbi Yirmiyah's "profession" was learning Torah (and therefore our Gemara would agree he should not stop to pray).

או עדיין לא היתה שעה עוברת

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, he still had plenty of time to pray.

3)

TOSFOS DH KEGON REBBI SHIMON

תוספות ד"ה כגון רבי שמעון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai indeed did not Daven.)

והא דאמר לקמן (דף לג:) כי הוה מטי (זמן תפלה) [עידן צלויי] לביש ומכסי ומצלי

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara later (33b) says that when it was time to pray, he would get dressed, cover himself, and pray. (This shows Rebbi Shimon did Daven!)

ההוא מצלי היינו ק"ש

(b)

Answer: This only refers to Kriyas Shema (not Davening).

4)

TOSFOS DH B'IBUR SHANAH

תוספות ד"ה בעיבור שנה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer.)

שלא יתקלקלו המועדות

(a)

Explanation: This was in order that the time of the Moadim (festivals) should not be ruined.

5)

TOSFOS DH SHEMA YISHKACH

תוספות ד"ה שמא ישכח

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the suspicion regarding carrying a needle before Shabbos.)

אליבא דרבא דאמר לא גזרי גזירה לגזירה אין לפרש שמא ישכח המחט

(a)

Explanation: According to Rabah who says that we do not make a decree due to another decree, we cannot explain that we are worried he will forget the needle.

דאפילו יצא ליכא איסור דאורייתא כדאיתא בפ"ב דב"ק (דף כו:) הכיר בה ושכחה לענין שבת פטור מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה

1.

Proof: Even if he will forget it (is there and he carries it) he will not transgress a Torah prohibition, as it is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Kama (26b) that if he recognized it and then forgot about it he will be exempt from transgressing a Torah prohibition on Shabbos, as the Torah only forbade a Meleches Machasheves.

אלא שמא ישכח את המחט להצניעו עד שיהיה שבת ולבסוף כשיזכור את המחט ישכח שהוא שבת ויצא

2.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, the suspicion is that he might forget to put down the needle before Shabbos, and when he remembers that he has the needle he will forget that it is Shabbos, and carry it in a forbidden fashion.

6)

TOSFOS DH LO YAMOD

תוספות ד"ה לא יעמוד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that when a person swallows something, the "putting down" is judged by the area of his throat, not his stomach.)

בהמוצא תפילין (עירובין דף צט.) מוקי לה בחפצים הצריכים לו ודברי הכל פי' אפי' רבנן דאמרי עומד אדם בר"ה ומטלטל ברה"י הכא מודו דכיון דצריך לשתות איכא למיחש שמא יביאם אצלו

(a)

Observation: In Eiruvin (99a), the Gemara understands that it is referring to when the person needs what is in the other domain, and therefore everyone agrees we should decree it is forbidden. This means that even the Rabbanan who say that a person can stand in the public domain and carry in the private domain will agree here that since this person needs to drink, we should suspect that he will bring the drink into his domain.

וא"ת השתא נמי כי יכניס ראשו ורובו אמאי שרי הא מפיק מרה"י לרה"ר שלוקח ברה"י ונחית בבטנו ברה"ר דהכי אמר התם השתין מים ורק חייב חטאת

(b)

Question: Why, then, should it make a difference if he puts his head and most of his body into the other domain? He is still taking from the private domain to the public domain, as the water he is taking from the private domain is coming to rest in his stomach which is in the public domain! The Gemara (ibid) clearly states that if one urinates or spits (from domain to domain) he is liable to bring a Chatas.

ויש לומר דבליעתו היינו הנחתו ואין לחוש במה ששוב נכנסים לתוך מעיו

(c)

Answer #1: When he swallows it, it is now considered put down (by his throat, which in the private domain). We do not have to worry about the fact that the water goes into his stomach.

כדאמר (לקמן דף פ.) הוציא דיו לכתוב ב' אותיות וכתבן כשהוא מהלך חייב דכתיבתן זו היא הנחתן

1.

Proof #1: This is as the Gemara says later (80a) that if he took out an amount of ink that was enough to write two letters and he wrote them while walking, he is liable. This is because the act of writing is considered putting down (even though he did not stop walking).

ואתי שפיר הא דפרק אמרו לו (כריתות דף יג:) יש אוכל אכילה אחת וחייב עליה ד' חטאות ואשם אחד רבי מאיר אומר אף אם היתה שבת והוציאו בפיו חייב והשתא היכי תני ר"מ הוצאה דלא מחייב עלה עד שתנוח במעיו בהדי הנהו דמחייב בשעת בליעה

2.

Proof #2: Accordingly, the Mishnah in Kerisus (13b) is now understandable. The Gemara says that it is possible for a person to eat something and be liable to bring four Korbanos Chatas and one Asham. Rebbi Meir says that if it was Shabbos and he carried this food with his mouth, he is liable for Shabbos as well. How can Rebbi Meir list this as an added prohibition of carrying on Shabbos if the person is not liable (when he swallows, but rather) until it rests in his stomach, unlike the other prohibitions where he is liable when he swallows?

11b----------------------------------------11b

אלא אהוצאה מחייב נמי בשעת בליעה כדפרישית

i.

Proof #2 (cont.): Rather, he must be liable for carrying when he swallows, as I have explained.

ורש"י תירץ בענין אחר בהמוצא תפילין (עירובין דף צט:) ובפ"ב דעירובין (דף כ. ושם) פירשתי

(d)

Answer #2: Rashi gives a different answer to this question in Eiruvin (99b). I explained this more in Eiruvin (20a).

ונראה דאע"ג דהלכה כר"מ בגזרותיו בהא דאמר לא יעמוד ברה"ר ומטלטל ברה"י או איפכא לית הלכתא כוותיה אלא כרבנן דשרו

(e)

Opinion: It appears that even though the law follows Rebbi Meir's decrees, regarding this decree that a person cannot stand in the public domain and carry in the private domain or visa versa we do not rule like his decree. Rather we rule like the Rabbanan who say this is permitted.

כדמוכח בהמוצא תפילין (שם דף צח:) דאמר מתני ליה רבי חנינא בר שלמיא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב לא יעמוד כו' א"ל שבקת רבנן ועבדת כר"מ

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (98b) that says that when Rebbi Chanina bar Shalmaya said this decree of Rebbi Meir before Chiya bar Rav in front of Rav, he was told, "You leave the words of the Rabbanan and do like Rebbi Meir?!"

7)

TOSFOS DH AMAR ABAYE

תוספות ד"ה אמר אביי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Abaye only holds we make a decree to ensure another decree is not transgressed regarding carrying.)

דגזרינן גזירה לגזירה דוקא בהוצאה גזר אביי וכל הנהו דמייתי ראייה איירי בהוצאה אבל בעלמא לא גזר

(a)

Explanation: Abaye only holds that we make a decree due to another decree regarding carrying. This is why all of these proofs are from carrying. However, Abaye generally does not hold that we make a decree due to another decree.

דהא בריש ביצה (דף ג.) פריך אביי למאן דגזר ביצה שנולדה בי"ט אטו פירות הנושרים היא גופה גזירה ואנן ניקום כו'

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Beitzah (3a) where Abaye asks on the opinion that decrees that an egg born on Yom Tov is forbidden due to fruit that falls off a tree on Yom Tov, "This itself is a decree, and are we going to make a decree due to another decree?!"

8)

TOSFOS DH ELA

תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how a press can be a Karmelis.)

ואע"ג דאין כרמלית בכלים האי גת כיון דמחובר לקרקע לא שמיה כלי

(a)

Explanation: Even though a vessel is not a Karmelis, since this press is attached to the ground it is not considered a vessel.

9)

TOSFOS DH V'IM YATZA

תוספות ד"ה ואם יצא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between a woman and tailor who carry a needle that is stuck into their clothing.)

והא דתנן בפרק במה אשה (לקמן דף סב.) ואם יצאה אשה במחט הנקובה חייבת חטאת

(a)

Implied Question: The Mishnah later (62a) says that if a woman goes out with a (sewing) needle that has a hole she is liable to bring a Chatas. (Why is the tailor exempt from a Chatas?)

התם לגמרי דרך הוצאה בכך

(b)

Answer: It is perfectly normal for a woman to carry the needle in this fashion (stuck into her clothing, as opposed to it being abnormal for a tailor to carry his needle in this fashion).

וכן גבי הא דאמר ר"מ אם שכח והוציאה בפיו חייב התם נמי דרך להוציא המאכל בפה

1.

Proof: Similarly, regarding Rebbi Meir's statement (Kerisus 13a) that if he forgot and carried the food in his mouth he is liable, it is clearly normal to take food out in one's mouth (or at least it was back then).

10)

TOSFOS DH KOL ATZULEI

תוספות ד"ה כל אצולי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the answer and question of the Gemara.)

אע"ג דהוי אורחי' בכך

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that this is the normal way to carry it. (If so, why isn't he liable according to Torah law?)

כיון דלא הוי אורחיה אלא משום אצולי טינוף לא חשבינן הוצאה כי אורחיה

(b)

Answer: Since the reason it is normal is only because he wants to make sure his clothes don't get dirty, it is not considered a normal way of carrying.

תדע דהא הכופה קערה בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן אע"ג דניחא ליה שנופלים המים ברחוק מן הכותל ע"י הקערה כיון דלא ניחא ליה אלא משום אצולי טינוף לא חשבינן ניחותא לגבי הכשר ה"נ לא חשיב הוצאה כי אורחיה

(c)

Explanation: The Gemara says that this is apparent from a person who turns over a vessel in order to protect a wall from being stricken. The resulting water that goes onto fruit is not considered "Ki Yutan" (i.e. wanted by the owner, and therefore causing the fruit it lands on to be able to become impure), even though he wants the water to fall far away from the wall as is apparent from his placement of the vessel. However, because this was only done in order to prevent the wall becoming dirty (i.e. ruined), it is not considered his convenience regarding enabling the fruit to become impure. Similarly, this is not considered normal carrying.

ופריך התם לא ניחא ליה בהני משקין כלל הכא ניחא ליה בהאי כיס לקבולי בי' זיבה ובכה"ג שמקבל מים לאצולי טינוף חשוב משקה לרצון כדמוכח מסיפא

1.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara continues to ask that in the case of the wall, he does not want the water at all. In this situation, he wants the bag in order for it to accept the flow. If one wants something to accept the water in order to save something else from damage it would be called wanting the water, as is apparent from the second part of the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:3).

וכי היכי דחשיב משקין המתקבלין אע"ג דלאצולי מטינוף משום דאחשבינהו קבלתן ה"נ חשיב כיס המקבל זיבה לאצולי מטינוף הוצאה כי אורחיה

2.

Explanation (cont.): Just as these are called liquids that are accepted (and wanted), even though the bucket is just preventing damage, because he wants the bucket to accept them, so too the bag that accepts the flow in order to save him from being soiled should be considered a normal process of carrying.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF