תוספות ד"ה וצריכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what was needed.)

פי' לכתוב חטאם וקבלת תשובתם


Explanation: This means that the Torah needed to state their sin, and the fact that their repentance was accepted.



תוספות ד"ה שאלמלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we should be grateful if it would have been better off if man had not been created.)

ואע"ג דאמרינן פ"ק דערובין (דף יג: ושם) נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say in Eiruvin (13b) that they (Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) got together and decided that it was best for man not to have been created. (If this is so, why should we be grateful to them for sinning and making sure we were created?)

היינו בתחלת לידתו שאין ידוע מה יהא בסופו אבל כשהוא צדיק אשריו ואשרי הדור שהוא בתוכו


Answer#1: This is only in the beginning, when a person is born, as it is unclear what he will end up becoming. However, when a person becomes a righteous person, he is praised and praised is the generation that he is in.

ועוד דלמסקנא דכמי שלא באנו לעולם אתי שפיר


Answer#2: Additionally, according to the conclusion of our Gemara, he only means that it is as if we would not have come into the world (but we indeed would have come into the world anyway).



תוספות ד"ה אין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this statement further.)

וא"ת מ"מ יכלו ע"י עובדי כוכבים שיהו מולידים


Question: Let these souls be finished through the idolaters having children!

ואומר הר"ר אלחנן דנשמות של ישראל ושל עובדי כוכבים אינן בגוף א'


Answer: Rabeinu Elchanan says that the souls of future Jews and future idolaters are not in the same Guf (and the one here is talking about Jewish souls as well).

והא דאמר (שבת ל:) עתידה אשה שתלד בכל יום לימות המשיח


Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (30b) says that in the future a woman will give birth every day during the time of Moshiach.

שמא י"ל גוף חדש ונשמות חדשות יהיו


Answer: It is possible that this will be from a new Guf, and with new souls.



תוספות ד"ה כי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Pasuk is interpreted in this teaching.)

משיח נקרא רוח כדכתיב (איכה ד) רוח אפינו משיח ה' וה"פ דקרא המשיח מלפני יאחר כמו העטופים ללבן על ידי נשמות אשר עשיתי


Explanation: Moshiach is called a spirit, as the Pasuk says, "The spirit of our nostrils is the Moshiach of Hash-m." The Pasuk means that Moshiach will be late before Me. This is akin to the Pasuk, "that are later/older will be to Lavan" due to the souls that I made.



תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that Dasan and Aviram became poor, and were not blind, lepers, or without children.)

דליכא למימר סומים היו


Implied Question: One cannot say that they became blind. (Why not?)

דהא כתיב בעדת קרח (במדבר טז) העיני האנשים ההם תנקר


Answer: This is because the Pasuk says regarding Dasan and Aviram's response to Moshe, "Even if you will poke out their eyes (meaning those of Dasan and Aviram, we will not go)."

ומצורעים נמי לא הוו


Implied Question: One cannot say they were lepers. (Why not?)

דהא בעדה בתוך המחנה היו יושבין


Answer: This is because they were sitting in the camp of Bnei Yisrael (and not outside of it, as they would have been doing if they were lepers).

וכ"ת דבמתן תורה נתרפאו דהא אותן שנתרפאו כבר חזרו למומן במעשה העגל


Answer(cont.): You cannot say that they were healed at the giving of the Torah (along with everyone else, as stated by Chazal), as those who were healed ended up having their ailments again after the sin of the Golden Calf.

ושלא היו להם בנים ליכא למימר


Implied Question: One cannot say that they did not have children. (Why not?)

דבשביל כך לא היו פחות קרובים למלכות להלשינו כבתחלה


Answer: This would not have made them lose their ties to the king, in order that they should be less of a threat to slander Moshe like they did originally.

וי"מ דמשמע ליה שירדו מנכסיהם דמחמת כן אין להן כח עוד להזיק אבל כל הנך היו יכולין להזיקו ע"י ממונם


Opinion: Some say that it must be they became poor, as this meant they no longer had the power to damage Moshe. However, all of the other problems would have still enabled them to damage him through their money.

ופשטיה דקרא מיירי בפרעה וימת מלך מצרים


Observation: The simple explanation of the Pasuk is that the person who died was Pharaoh (unlike our Gemara's explanation that it was Dasan and Aviram), as the Pasuk states beforehand, "And the king of Mitzrayim died."



תוספות ד"ה כפויי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara calls Bnei Yisrael ingrates for this.)

לכך קראם כפויי טובה שלא רצו לומר אתה תן לפי שלא היו רוצים להחזיק לו טובה בכך


Explanation: He called them ingrates because they did not want to say, "You give" because they did not want to have to be grateful for it.



תוספות ד"ה עד

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether or not Moshe himself remembered and/or understood Hash-m's statement appropriately.)

פירש"י שאף משה לא נזכר


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that Moshe himself did not remember.

וא"ת אמאי כעס משה על ישראל הלא גם הוא לא נזכר


Question: If so, why did Moshe get upset at Bnei Yisrael? He himself did not remember!

וי"ל שלפי שהוא לא היה צריך לתפלה זו לא נתן לב עד מ' שנה דקם אדעתיה דרביה אבל ישראל שהיו צריכין לתפלה זו היה להם להתבונן מאותה שעה שהרי כבר חטאו בעגל ובמרגלים


Answer: Being that he did not require this prayer, he did not pay attention until forty years later when he realized what His Master meant. However, Bnei Yisrael required this prayer. They therefore should have thought from that time on about this, as they already sinned by the golden calf and the spies.

ור"י פי' שמשה לא הקפיד עליהם על דבר זה עד מ' שנה כי היה סבור דלסוף מ' שנה יעמדו על דעת קונם ויאמרו אתה תן ולא היה בדעתו שהיו מניחים לומר אותו משום כפיית טובה אבל כשעברו ארבעים שנה שראה שהיה להם לדעת הבין עליהם שהיו מניחין בשביל כפיית טובה ואז הוכיחם


Opinion#2: The Ri explains that Moshe was not upset at them regarding this matter for forty years. This is because he thought that after forty years they would understand what Hash-m wanted at the time, and they would say, "You give." He didn't think that they would refrain from saying this due to their being ingrates. However, when forty years passed and he saw that they should have known to ask this, he understood that they refrained from doing so because they were ingrates, and he therefore rebuked them.




תוספות ד"ה יצרם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the proof from the Pasuk.)

דריש ליה ממשלחי רגל דיצה"ר נקרא אורח כדכתיב ויבא הלך לאיש העשיר


Explanation: This is derived from the Pasuk, "From those who send out the feet." This is because the evil inclination is called a guest (i.e. a poor guest who walks as opposed to rides, see Seder Yaakov), as the Pasuk says, "And the one who walked went to the rich man."



תוספות ד"ה ומי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes Rashi's explanation of the Gemara.)

פירש רש"י וכי אדם רגיל כ"כ להעלות על לבו שמחתו וחגו דאסרת ג' ימים קודם לפי שהוא יום איד של עבודת כוכבים ונזכר שם עבודת כוכבים תדיר בפיו ואזיל ומודי והתנן בד' פרקים וכו'


Explanation: Rashi explains, does a person usually get so involved in his happiness and holiday that three days before his holiday it should be forbidden to deal with him because he will end up thanking his idols?! Doesn't the Mishnah say that four times a year etc.

ומסיק התם דלאכילה שאינו טרוד לפני החג אלא על עסקי אכילה סגי בחד יומא הכא דלהקרבה שצריך לחזר אחר עסקי הקרבה בעי תלתא יומי והלכך אסור לשאת ולתת בכל עניני מקח וממכר משום דשם עבודת כוכבים שגור בפיו ואזיל ומודי


Explanation(cont.): The Gemara concludes that when he is thinking about what he will eat, he only requires one day. However, here he is thinking about what he will offer as a sacrifice and he must prepare accordingly. He therefore requires three days. This is why it is forbidden to do any buying and selling with them in any way, because the name of their idol is constantly on their lips during this time, causing them to thank their idol upon a good deal.



תוספות ד"ה ערב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why these four days were chosen to make big meals.)

הא דלא נקט (יום) הראשון של חג


Implied Question: The Gemara does not mention that they used to slaughter animals for the first day of Sukos. (Why not?)

לפי שהם טרודים במצות לולב וסוכה ואין להם פנאי להרבות בסעודות


Answer#1: This is because they were busy at this time with the Mitzvah of Lulav and Sukah, and they do not have time to make big meals.

וי"מ דבהנך ארבעה פרקים טעמא רבה אית בהו


Answer#2: Some say that these four times have special reasons for making a bigger meal (on purpose, unlike the first reason).

יו"ט האחרון של חג לפי שהוא זמן בפ"ע וחלוק משלפניו תקנו להרבות בסעודה משא"כ בשביעי של פסח


Answer(cont.): The last day of Sukos is special as it is its own holiday (having its own Shehecheyanu), and is different than the days of Sukos before it. They therefore instituted to make large meals on this day. This is as opposed to the seventh day of Pesach.

וגם הקרבנות שבשמיני היו בשביל ישראל וכל החג היו מקריבין נגד העובדי כוכבים


Answer(cont.): The Korbanos on the eighth day of Sukos are due to Bnei Yisrael, as opposed to the other days where the Korbanos correspond to the nations of the world.

וערב פסח לפי שהוא יום גאולה ויציאה לחירות


Answer(cont.): They made large meals on Erev Pesach (for Pesach) being that it is a day of redemption and going out to freedom.

ועצרת כדאמרינן בפרק אלו דברים (פסחים דף סח:) הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם


Answer(cont.): They made big meals on Shevuos because the Gemara says in Pesachim (68b), "Everyone agrees on Shevuos that we also require "for you." (This means that everyone agrees there should be some kind of physical celebration, which is usually represented by eating.)

ור"ה מפני שהוא תחלת השנה מרבים בסעודה לעשות סימן יפה וכמה עניני' עושים בו לסימן יפה כדאמר במסכת הוריות (דף יב.) וכריתות (דף ה:)


Answer(cont.): They made big meals on Rosh Hashanah because it was the beginning of the year. This was a good sign for the rest of the year. They did many things at this time for a good sign, as stated in Horiyos (12a) and Kerisus (5b).



תוספות ד"ה וכדברי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara in Kesuvos is asking its question according to everyone.)

תימה בפ"ק דכתובות (ה. ושם ד"ה אלא) דפריך תלמודא יוה"כ שחל להיות בשני בשבת ידחה גזרה שמא ישחוט בן עוף ואמאי שביק כל הני פרקים דד"ה ופריך לדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי


Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Kesuvos (5a) asks that if Yom Kippur falls on Monday it should be pushed off. We should decree that perhaps a person will slaughter a bird on Shabbos (in order to prepare for the big meal on Erev Yom Kippur which would fall out on Sunday.) Why didn't the Gemara focus on any of the other times that everyone agrees are big holidays? Why did it focus instead on Erev Yom Kippur according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili?

וי"ל דשפיר פריך אליבא דרבנן דעיקר פירכיה מבן עוף דוקא דבהמה איכא טירחא יתירה להפילה ומידכר


Answer: It is possible to answer that the question is also according to the Rabbanan. The main question is specifically from a bird. A person who would want to slaughter an animal first must go through a lot of trouble such as making the animal fall down, causing him to remember that it is Shabbos. (There is therefore no need to make a decree for the other days.)

ובפרקים אלו אינם רגילין רק בבהמות וביוה"כ רגילים בעופות ודגים ודברים קלים כדאמרינן בב"ר (פ' יא) עובדא בההוא חייטא דזבן חד נונא תריסר דינרין


Answer(cont.): At these (four) times, one usually only slaughters animals. On Yom Kippur, they usually slaughter birds, fish, and light things. This is as stated in Bereishis Rabah (ch.11) that there was an incident with a person who bought a single fish for (the unreasonable price of) twelve Dinarim (on Erev Yom Kippur).



תוספות ד"ה והתנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the thirty days was indeed instituted mainly for the Korban Pesach.)

ואע"פ שגם עתה שאין קרבן שואלין בהלכות הפסח קודם ל' יום


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that even though there is no Korban Pesach anymore, we still ask regarding the laws of Pesach for thirty days. (Accordingly, it is possible that the thirty days has nothing to do with the Korban Pesach, and therefore cannot be brought as relative to our discussion.)

מ"מ עיקר התקנה על הקרבן נתקנה כדאמר טעמא בפ"ק דפסחים (דף ו:) שהרי נביא עומד בפסח ראשון ומזהיר על פסח שני


Answer: Even so, the main decree (of thirty days) is regarding the Korban. This is as the Gemara explains in Pesachim (6b) that the prophet stood up on Pesach and warned people regarding Pesach Sheini (which was one month later).



תוספות ד"ה מנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this teaching.)

פירוש להקריב לגבוה בבמה שלהן דאילו בבית המקדש אפי' בדוקין שבעין נמי אסור דכתיב ומיד בן נכר לא תקריבו ומייתי ליה ומכל החי דהזהיר הקב"ה לנח להביא מחוסר אבר בתיבה מפני שעתיד להביא מהם קרבן


Explanation: This is referring to Nochrim offering an animal as a sacrifice on their own private altar. In the Beis Hamikdash, it would even be forbidden to sacrifice an animal with a cataract in its eye, as the Pasuk says, "And from the hands of a Nochri you should not offer." The Gemara answers by quoting the Pasuk, "And from all the living etc." to indicate that Hash-m warned Noach not to bring an animal missing a limb to the Teivah (ark), because he was supposed to bring Korbanos from these animals in the future.

וא"ת הא לקמן בסמוך (דף ו.) אמר דהזהירו נמי מלהביא אל התיבה זקן וסריס ולא נאסרו לבני נח


Question#1: The Gemara later (6a) says that Hash-m warned Noach not to bring an old animal or a Sris (animal whose member has been cut off) to the Teivah. However, these animals are allowed to be offered as sacrifices. (This shows that we cannot establish a rule that whatever was allowed to enter the Teivah can be used, and what was not cannot be used.)

ועוד קשיא דקרא גבי בהמה טמאה כתיב שהם שנים שנים דכתיב ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל תביא וגו' והנהו לאו בני קרבן נינהו אף לבני נח כדמשמע פרק בתרא דזבחים (דף קטז.)


Question#2: Additionally, the Pasuk quoted above is regarding the unkosher animals, as two animals came from each of the unkosher animals. This is as the Pasuk says, "And from all of the living, from all of the flesh, two from all you should bring etc." These cannot be brought as Korbanos even for Nochrim, as is implied by the Gemara in Zevachim (116a). (Accordingly, how can we learn a rule from this Pasuk regarding the condition of kosher animals in order to be sacrificed?)

וי"ל דאין לאסור אלו זקן וסריס לקרבן במה שמעטם מהבאת התיבה כיון דאיכא טעמא אחרינא דאיכא למימר דהא דמעטן הכתוב היינו לפי שאינם ראוין לקיום העולם אבל מחוסר אבר אי לאו לאסרן לקרבן למה נמעטו מלהביאם לתיבה הרי הם ראוין לקיום העולם


Answer: One cannot forbid an old animal or a Sris because they were not allowed to come into the Teivah. It is possible that this was for a different reason, namely that they are not fit for re-populating the world with their species. However, the only reason that animals missing a limb would be prohibited from entering the Teivah is because they should not be brought as a Korban. After all, they could repopulate the world with their species.

ולבהמה טמאה ע"כ נמי לא מצי קאי דכיון דשלמים נמי לא חזו להקרבה


Answer(cont.): The Torah clearly is not addressing (with these words) unkosher animals, as they cannot even be offered as sacrifices if they are without blemish.



תוספות ד"ה מנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if a Nochri is actually commanded not to offer animals with missing limbs as Korbanos - and if he is, why is this not counted as one of the Mitzvos Bnei No'ach, and why did the Torah have to specify Jews may not offer animals with missing limbs as Korbanos?)

יש לדקדק מלשון אסור שהוא איסור גמור ובן נח מוזהר בדבר


Observation: The term "forbidden" indicates that this is in fact something that a Nochri is forbidden from doing.

ותימה מ"ט לא חשיב ליה בהדי ז' מצות שנצטוו ויתחייבו עליו מיתה


Question: This is difficult. Why isn't this counted as one of the seven Noahide laws that are punishable by death?

ואין לומר משום דאזהרתיה לא כתיבא בהדיא


Question(cont.): One cannot say that this is because the warning against this prohibition is not clearly stated.

הא מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו כדדרשינן מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל ולא גזל ודבק באשתו ולא באשת חברו


Question(cont.): This is because we understand a negative from a positive. This concept is used in the derivation, "From all trees of the garden you should eat - (this teaches) not from things that are stolen." We similarly derive, "And he will stick to his wife - (this teaches) and not his friend's wife."

אלא י"ל דהאי קום עשה הוא דמאיש איש מרבינן שהעובדי כוכבים נודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל ואם נדר מחוסר אבר אמרינן ליה קום והבא קרבן שלם וקום ועשה לא קחשיב


Answer: Rather, it is possible to answer that this is an active Mitzvah. We derive from the Pasuk, "A man a man" that even a Nochri can pledge and donate Korbanos like a Jew. If he pledged an animal that is missing a limb, we tell him to bring a whole Korban. Mitzvos that require action are not counted among the seven Noahide laws (see Sanhedrin 58b).

והא דאמרינן פ"ק דקדושין (דף כד:) דמצרכינן מן העוף ולא כל העוף למעוטי יבשה גפה נקטע רגלה ל"ל פשיטא דמי איכא מידי דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור


Implied Question: The Gemara says in Kidushin (24b) that we require the Pasuk, "From the bird - (teaching) not the entire bird" to exclude a bird with a dried out wing or a cut off foot. Why do we require this teaching? It is obvious, as there is nothing that is permitted to a Jew that is prohibited to a Nochri (if the Nochri cannot bring it as a Korban, certainly a Yisrael cannot bring it).

וי"ל דס"ד כיון ששאר מומין הפוסלין בבהמה הותרו בעוף כדאמרינן תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעוף ובבהמה אין חילוק בין במומין בין במחוסר אבר בעוף נמי נימא כיון שהותרו המומין מחוסר אבר נמי נשתרי קמ"ל מן העוף


Answer#1: It is possible to answer that one would think as follows. Other blemishes that render an animal invalid to be brought as a Korban are permitted by a bird, as we state that there is only a concept of no blemishes and being male for an animal Korban, but not for a bird. Being that there is no difference between a blemish and missing a limb regarding an animal sacrifice, we should say regarding a bird that just as it can have blemishes, it may also be missing a limb. This is why the Pasuk must teach us, "From the bird" (as stated above).

ועוד י"ל דאי לא כתיב מן העוף לאסור מחוסר אבר לישראל הוה אמינא דבני נח משתרו והכתוב בא לאסור לישראל אע"ג דכתיב גבי בני נח


Answer#2: It is also possible to answer that without the Pasuk, "From the bird" forbidding a Jew from bringing a bird that is missing a limb, I would think that Nochrim are permitted to do so. The Pasuk would presumably be forbidding this for a Jew, even though it is stated regarding Noahides.

כדאמר בפ' ארבע מיתות (סנהדרין דף נט.) כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח נשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה [וע"ע תוס' זבחים סח: ד"ה ושניסמית]


Answer#2(cont.): This is as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (59a) that every Mitzvah that was said to Noahides, and was not said again at Sinai, is a Mitzvah that is for Bnei Yisrael and not for Noahides. If it was said at Har Sinai as well, both of them must keep this commandment. [See also Tosfos in Zevachim (68b, DH "v'Shenismis").]