תוספות ד"ה דאמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not the prohibitions derived from Lo Sechanem apply to all Nochrim, or just the seven nations.)

דריש נמי מהאי קרא בסמוך שלא ליתן להם חן ושלא ליתן להם מתנת חנם וסתמא דמלתא מיירי בכולהו עובדי כוכבים וכן משמע בסוגיין בסמוך


Explanation: Rebbi Yosi derives from this same Pasuk later that one cannot compliment idolaters or give them free presents. The Gemara implies that this applies to all Nochrim, as the Gemara later also implies.

וקשה דהאי לא תחנם בשבע אומות דוקא כתיב דכתיב (דברים ז) ונשל גוים רבים מפניך החתי וגו' וכתיב לא תכרות להם ברית ולא תחנם ולא תתחתן בם ובפרק הערל (יבמות דף עו.) מוקמינן ליה בשבע אומות דבגירותן לית להו חתנות וכתיב עוד בתריה בתך לא תתן לבנו


Question: This is difficult. Lo Sechanem is specifically referring to the seven nations who lived in Eretz Yisrael in Biblical times, as the Pasuk says, "And many nations will fall before you, the Chiti etc... Do not make a covenant with them and do not show them any favor, and do not marry with them." In Yevamos (76a), the Pasuk establishes this Pasuk as referring to the seven nations, who one cannot marry even if they convert. The Pasuk above continues, "do not give your daughter to his son."

ואמרינן בספ"ק דיבמות (דף יז.) ובסוף האומר בקידושין (דף סח: ושם) דלרבנן דלא דרשי כי יסיר לרבות כל המסירין לא ילפינן מהאי קרא שאר אומות למימר דלא תפסי בהו קדושין דהא האי קרא בז' אומות כתיב וכן לא תחיה כל נשמה


Question (cont.): We say in Yevamos (17a) and Kidushin (68b) that according to the Rabbanan who do not derive, "When he will turn away" to include any woman who will take someone's heart away from serving Hash-m, women who converted from other nations are not included in this prohibition, and we do not say that Kidushin with them is invalid. This is because this Pasuk is referring solely to the seven nations, as is the Pasuk, "Do not let any of these souls live."

וי"ל דודאי בכל הנך קראי איכא טעמא רבה דלא מצינן לאוקמינן אלא בז' אומות ולא תחיה כל נשמה ליכא לאוקמי בשאר אומות דבהדיא כתיב בהו והיו לך למס ועבדוך


Answer: Regarding all of these Pesukim, there is a good reason why they cannot be discussing any nation other than the seven nations. "Do not let any of these souls live" clearly cannot be referring to any nation other than the seven nations, as regarding the other nations that are captured the Pasuk says, "They will be to you for taxes, and they will serve you."

וכן כי יסיר לרבנן דלא דרשי טעמא דקרא סברא הוא לאוקמי בשבע אומות דמסירי טפי וכן לא תתחתן ליכא לאוקמי אלא בשבע אומות שהרי כל שאר אומות מותרין לבא בקהל בגירותן חוץ מאותם שאסר הכתוב מצרי עמוני ומואבי אבל מתנת חנם ונתינת חן וחנייה אין שום טעם לחלק בין שאר עובדי כוכבים לז' עממים


Answer (cont.): Similarly, "When he will turn away," according to the Rabbanan who do not make laws based on the reasoning implied by the Pasuk, is logically presumed to be discussing the seven nations, as they are most adept at taking one's heart away from Hash-m. Additionally, "Do not marry" is only referring to the seven nations, as a convert from all of the other nations is allowed to marry a regular Jew, besides for those nations that are specifically prohibited from doing so, such as a Mitzri, Amoni, or Moavi. However, regarding giving them free presents and compliments, there is no reason to differentiate between other Nochrim and the seven nations.

מיהו קשיא דכריתת ברית שכתוב אצל לא תחנם אי בשאר אומות איירי הכתיב (מלכים א ה) גבי שלמה וחירם מלך צור ויכרתו ברית שניהם


Question: However, there is a difficulty. Making a covenant with the Nochrim, stated next to "Do not show them favor," does not seem to be discussing the other nations. The Pasuk says regarding Shlomo and Chiram, King of Tzur, that they made a covenant with each other.

ועוד דמשמע כל שאר אומות לא הוזהרו על כריתת ברית דהא בגבעונים כתיב (יהושע ט) בקרבי אתה יושב ואיך אכרות לך ברית משמע הא בשאר אומות מותר


Question: Additionally, the implication is that regarding all other nations, Bnei Yisrael were not warned regarding making a covenant. Regarding the Givonim the Pasuk states, "In my midst you sit. How can I make a covenant with you?" This implies that with other nations (who do not sit in Eretz Yisrael) it would be permitted!

וי"ל דלא תכרות ברית נמי לא קאי אלא בשבע אומות וטעמא רבה איכא ועניינא דקרא נמי מוכח דכתיב ונשל גוים רבים ועצומים ממך מפניך החרם תחרימם לא תכרות להם ברית ואיכא למימר דכיון דבשעת כיבוש קיימי בלא תחיה שלא בשעת כיבוש קיימי באיסור כריתות ברית


Answer#1: "Do not make a covenant" is only referring to the seven nations. There is a good reason for this, as indicated by the Pesukim. The Pasuk says, "And nations who are many and more mighty than you will fall before you, kill them, do not make a covenant with them." Being that when Eretz Yisrael was being captured by Bnei Yisrael, they are included in the prohibition, "Do not let live etc." when Eretz Yisrael is not being captured they are still included in not making a covenant with them.

אי נמי משום דאדוקי בעבודת כוכבים טפי אבל שאר אומות לא


Answer#2: Alternatively, these nations are heavily involved with idolatry (and we are therefore warned never to make a covenant with them), as opposed to idolaters from other nations.



תוספות ד"ה אחד גר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the method of deriving a word as fitting both with the beginning and end of a Pasuk.)

הכא משמע דלכ"ע איכא למדרש תתננה ומכור אדלעיל מיניה ואדבתריה ואפילו רבי יהודה לא פליג אלא משום או


Observation: The Gemara here implies that according to everyone the words, "You should give and sell" refer to the previous context in the Pasuk, as well as the following context of the Pasuk. Even Rebbi Yehudah only argues because the word "Oh" - "or" interrupts.

וה"נ דרשינן פרק איזהו נשך (ב"מ דף סא.) את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך דשדינן בנשך ובמרבית אכסף דלקמיה ואאכלך דלבתריה


Observation (cont.): There is a similar teaching in Bava Metzia (61a). The Pasuk states, "You should not give him your money with interest, and with interest do not give your food." The Gemara derives that "Nesech" and "Marbis," the two words indicating interest, refer to both the word "money" in the former part of the Pasuk, and the word "food" in the latter part of the Pasuk.

וקשה מ"ש מההיא דפרק קמא דקדושין (דף לב:) גבי מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן דלא שדינן תקום והדרת אשיבה ואזקן


Question: This is difficult. How is this different from the Gemara in Kidushin (32b) that quotes the Pasuk, "Before an old man one should rise, and he should glorify the face of an elder?" The Gemara there insists that we cannot say "rise" and "glorify" refer to both "an old man" and "an elder!"

ויש לומר דהתם לא שייך והדרת גבי מפני ולא שייך נמי תקום גבי פני וקל להבין


Answer: The Gemara there understands that "and glorify" cannot be used together with the word "before" in this Pasuk. Additionally, the word, "You should rise" cannot be used together with the word "face." This is easy to understand. (In other words, while the Gemara understands it is possible that a Pasuk can be learned in this fashion, this Pasuk simply does not make sense using this method of derivation.)

ואין להקשות מאותן מקראות שאין להם הכרע (יומא דף נב:) והסימן מהם מ"ם שו"א פירוש מחר משוקדים שאת ארור וקם אמאי לא אמרינן דקיימי אתרוייהו


Implied Question: One cannot ask a question from the Pesukim that do not have a clear way of being read (as stated in Yoma 52b that we are unsure whether they refer to the previous words or following words). The Siman for these Pesukim is Me'M Sh'aV'A. This is an acronym for the words, "Machar, Meshukadim, Se'eis, Arur, and V'Kam." Why don't we simply say they refer to both?

דהתם לא שייך פירושו בזה כמו בזה שאם עונה שאת אאם תיטיב יהיה שאת לשון נשיאות עון ואם עונה אאם לא תיטיב יהיה שאת לשון פורענות כמו נשא אשא להם


Answer: These Pesukim cannot be understood as one definition being like the other definition. For example, if the word Se'eis refers to the previous words "If you will do good," then Se'eis refers to a sin being carried over (in a good way). If Se'eis is connected to the following words, "And if you will not do good" then Se'eis means punishment, as in the Pasuk, "I will surely punish them."

וכן ארור אפם כי עז אם אפם מוסב לארור אינו מקלל אלא אפם ואם אפם מוסב על כי עז נמצא מקללם


Answer (cont.): Similarly, the Pasuk, "Arur is their anger for it is strong." If Arur refers to the following word, anger, he is only cursing their anger. If anger is connected to "for it is strong" and Arur is by itself, the implication is he is cursing them (not their anger).

וכן וקם אי קאי אהעם נראה שיזנו אחרי אלהי נכר ואי קאי אהנך שכב וגו' רמז לתחיית המתים


Answer (cont.): Similarly, if "V'Kam" is referring to the nation, the definition is that they are going after the strange gods. If it is referring to, "You will lie with your fathers" it is a hint to the fact that there will be a resurrection of the dead.

וצ"ע ממשוקדים וממחר ואין לשם שום חלוק משמעות


Question: However, this requires study, being that the words Meshukadim and Machar could be learned as part of both the first part and last part of the Pasuk without a significant contradiction in the two explanations.

ובירושלמי מוסיף פסוק ששי שאין לו הכרע בני יעקב באו מן השדה כשמעם או כשמעם ויתעצבו ולשם יש חילוק משמעות דאי כשמעם קאי אבאו משמע שבאו בלא עת ואי כשמעם קאי אויתעצבו א"כ באו בעתם ולאחר שבאו כשמעם אז ויתעצבו


Observation: The Yerushalmi adds a sixth Pasuk whose meaning is unclear. "The sons of Yakov came from the field when they heard" or "when they heard and they became upset." These explanations indeed contradict each other. If "when they heard" refers to when they arrived, the implication is that they did not come at the regular time. If "when they heard" refers to "and they became upset" they did come at the regular time, and after the arrived they heard and got upset.



תוספות ד"ה רבי יהודה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the parameters of the prohibition against giving presents to Nochrim.)

תימה לר' יהודה למה לי לא תחנם לאסור מתנת חנם ותיפוק לי' מהכא


Question: This is difficult according to Rebbi Yehudah. Why do we require Lo Sechanem to forbid giving a Nochri a present for free? Why don't we derive that it is forbidden from this Pasuk (that one cannot give the Neveilah for free to a Nochri)?

וי"ל דלא תחנם אצטריך ליתן בו לאו והאי דהכא נמי איצטריך לעשה


Answer#1: Lo Sechanem is required to make this into a negative prohibition. This Pasuk (quoted in our Gemara) makes this into a positive prohibition as well.

אי נמי איכא למימר דהאי דהכא איצטריך לגלות על נתינה דגר שהיא מתנה ממש ולא נתינה בדמים


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that this Pasuk is required to show that the "giving" mentioned regarding giving a Neveilah to a Ger Toshav is an actual present, and does not mean that we only give him the Neveilah in exchange for money.

והקשה ריב"ם דהכא אסר מתנת חנם לעובד כוכבים לר' יהודה ובפרק כל שעה (פסחים דף כב. ושם ד"ה ור') מוקמינן ההיא דשולח אדם ירך לעובד כוכבים כר' יהודה


Question: The Rivam asks that our Gemara says that Rebbi Yehudah holds one cannot give an idolater a present. In Pesachim (22a), however, we establish the case where one sends a thigh of meat to an idolater as a present as being according to Rebbi Yehudah. (Isn't this a contradiction?)

ותירץ רבי דבתוספתא תניא גבי מילתיה דר' יהודה דהכא בעובד כוכבים המכירו מותר מפני שהוא כמוכרו לו


Answer: Rebbi answers that the Tosefta says regarding Rebbi Yehudah's position that it is permitted to give a present to a Nochri that one has a relationship with, as this is akin to selling it to him (as the Nochri will probably reciprocate in some way).

והא דאמרי' בפרק הדר (עירובין דף סד:) דא"ל לההוא עובד כוכבים טול גלוסקין מאילעא ואע"פ שלא היה מכירו כדמשמע התם


Implied Question: The Gemara says in Eiruvin (64b) that Rabban Gamliel told a Nochri to take a cake from Ila (a Jewish scholar). This is despite the fact that Rabban Gamliel did not know him, as is implied by the Gemara there. (How could he have given this Nochri a present?)

שאני התם שהיה מתלוה עמו בדרך


Answer: The case there is different, as this Nochri was traveling with them on the road (and it is therefore akin to having a relationship with him).

וא"ת למאן דאסר וכי לית ליה ההיא דמפרנסין עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום


Question: According to the opinion who says that this is forbidden, does he not hold of the law that we support poor Nochrim along with poor Jews due to maintaining peaceful relations?

וי"ל דדרכי שלום אין זו מתנת חנם


Answer: Maintaining peaceful relations is not considered a free present (but rather is also akin to having a relationship with the Nochrim in general).

וא"ת ולמאן דשרי וכי לית ליה ההיא דהעובדי כוכבים ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין


Question: According to the opinion that says one can give this as a present, does he not hold of the law that idolaters and shepherds of small animals are not saved from nor put into pits? (How can he allow one to give food to a Nochri if the law is that we do not save them? Giving them food is similar to saving them!)

וי"ל דקרא מיירי שאינו מחיה באותה מתנה כי אף אם לא יתן לו כלום לא ימות


Answer: The Pasuk is discussing a case where he is not giving the Nochri life by giving him this Neveilah. He will continue to have food whether or not he receives this Neveilah.



תוספות ד"ה ורבי מאיר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we do not have an obligation to give things to a Ger Toshav instead of selling it to a regular Nochri.)

וא"ת וכי אם יש לו לאדם חפץ למכור יתננו לגר קודם שימכרנו לעובד כוכבים והלא אפי' לישראל אינו מצוה על כך


Question: If a person has an object that he wants to sell, does he have to give it as a present to a Ger Toshav before selling it to a Nochri? He doesn't even have to give it to a Jew (instead of selling it to a Nochri)!

וי"ל דדוקא נבילה שאינו שוה אלא דבר מועט לישראל שלא היו עובדי כוכבים מצויים ביניהם ולגר היא שוה הרבה כשאר בשר


Answer: This is only regarding a Neveilah, as it is only worth a small amount of money to a Jew. They did not have a lot of Nochrim around them, and the Neveilah is worth just as much as any other meat to a Ger Toshav.



תוספות ד"ה להקדים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Torah needed to say that one can give a Neveilah to a Ger Toshav.)

וא"ת כיון דמסברא יש לנו להקדים נתינה דגר למכירה דעובד כוכבים למה נכתבה נתינה דגר כלל מכ"ש ממכירה דעובד כוכבים ידעינן ליה


Question: Being that logic dictates that we should give it to a Ger Toshav over selling it to a Nochri, why does the Torah bother saying that we should give it to a Ger Toshav? We would know this anyway from the fact that it says to sell it to a Nochri?

וי"ל דאי לא כתיב נתינה דגר הוה אמינא דאסור ליתן לו נבילות כדי שיתן לב להתגייר לגמרי


Answer: If the Pasuk would not say that it should be given to a Ger Toshav, I would think that one is forbidden from giving the Ger Toshav any Neveilos, in order that he should set his heart on converting to Judaism.



תוספות ד"ה הרואה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos adds that one should even make a special blessing upon seeing a nice looking camel or donkey.)

בירושלמי אומר אפי' גמל נאה סוס נאה חמור נאה אומר ברוך שככה לו בעולמו


Observation: The Yerushalmi states that even if someone sees a nice looking camel or donkey, he should say, "Baruch she'Kachah Lo b'Olamo" - "Blessed is He Who has such things in His world."




תוספות ד"ה שלא יהרהר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is forbidden to think about women in a lewd fashion according to Torah law.)

האי קרא דרשה גמורה היא ולא אסמכתא כדמוכח פרק נערה שנתפתתה (כתובות דף מו.)


Explanation: This Pasuk is a regular derivation and is not an Asmachta, as is evident from the Gemara in Kesuvos (46a).

והקשה ה"ר אלחנן א"כ מאי רבותיה דיחזקאל דאמרינן פרק שני דחולין (דף לז:) ונפשי לא מטומאה שלא הרהרתי ביום ובאתי לידי טומאה בלילה


Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks, if so, what is the special inclusion (i.e. praise) regarding Yechezkel that is stated in Chulin (37b)? The Gemara there says that the Pasuk, "And my soul was not involved in impurity" refers to the fact that Yechezkel did not think about women during the day and come to impurity (Shichvas Zera l'Vatalah) at night. (Why is this something Yechezkel said about himself in a praising manner? This is basic Halachah that every Jew is obligated to keep!)

ואור"י דמכל מקום רבותא היא ממה שהיה מציל עצמו מהרהור מה שאין כן בשאר אדם דאינו ניצול מהם בכל יום כדאמרי' בבבא בתרא פרק גט פשוט (דף קסד:) שלשה דברים שאין אדם ניצול מהם בכל יום וקא חשיב הרהור


Answer: The Ri explains that this is still an inclusive and novel statement, as he saved himself from thinking about women, as opposed to other men who do not generally save themselves from having such thoughts every day (even though it is indeed forbidden). This is as stated in Bava Basra (164b), "Three things (i.e. sins) a person is not saved from every day." One of these things is thinking about women.



תוספות ד"ה ענוה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles the opinions of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and the Medrash.)

בירושלמי דשקלים גריס איפכא יראת חטא מביאה לידי ענוה וקא סבר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דבסמוך דאמר ענוה גדולה מכולם


Observation: The Yerushalmi has the opposite text, that fear of Heaven brings one to humbleness. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, quoted later, who says that humbleness is greater than all of these attributes (listed here).

והקשה ר' יהודה מפרי"ש דאמרינן במדרש שלשה דברים שקולים זה כזה יראת חטא חכמה ענוה


Question: Rebbi Yehudah from Paris asks that we say in the Medrash that three attributes are equal to each other. They are: fear of Heaven, wisdom, and humbleness. (This is unlike Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi!)

וי"ל דה"ק דלא סגיא להא בלא הא יראה בלא חכמה וחכמה בלא יראה ושתיהם בלא ענוה וענוה בלא שתיהם


Answer: The Medrash means that each one requires the other. Fear of Heaven requires wisdom, wisdom requires fear of Heaven, and both of them require humbleness, just as humbleness requires both of them.



תוספות ד"ה חסידים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk of "Az Dibarta etc." is not a question on the opinion that being humble is greater than being devout.)

וא"ת הא כתיב נמי אז דברת בחזון לחסידיך ולא כתיב לענויך


Question: Doesn't the Pasuk also say, "Then You talked in a vision to Your devout ones," (as quoted earlier in the Gemara) and it does not say "Your humbles ones?"

וי"ל התם חסידים כתיב וכ"ש ענוים אבל לענין בשורת הגאולה פשיטא תולה אותם בחשובי' וגדולים יותר


Answer: The Pasuk there says devout ones, and means that Hash-m certainly appeared to those who are humble (who are greater, according to this opinion, than those who are devout). However, regarding the message that the redemption is coming, this is obviously only told to the greatest class of people (those who are humble).



תוספות ד"ה ואי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Beraisa did not really have to state the case of the tree.)

והקשה הר"ר אלחנן לישמעינן שחת דידיע שבחא וקמה דפסדא וכ"ש אילן


Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks, why doesn't the Beraisa just give a case of undergrown wheat, as it clearly gets better when it is attached to the ground longer, along with a case of fully grown stalks that get worse the longer they are attached? If we know these two cases, we will certainly know that Rebbi Meir holds one cannot sell a tree (which only gets better although it is not obvious) on condition that it will be chopped down, and that Rebbi Yehudah will say one can sell a tree on condition it will be chopped down (just as he holds one can sell undergrown wheat on condition, even though it clearly gets better)!

ונ"ל דלא זו אף זו קתני


Answer: The Beraisa says this case in a manner of saying, "Not only is this (selling a tree on condition it will chopped down) forbidden, but also these cases are forbidden."



תוספות ד"ה בהמה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question, and the case of the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir.)

תימה מאי בעי ומאי פליגי ר"מ ורבי יהודה בסמוך הא אפי' בסתם אמרינן לעיל אימור לשחיטה זבנה ולפי' רשב"ם דלא מיירי לעיל אלא בפרה דוקא ניחא


Question: This is difficult. What is the question, and regarding what do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue later? Even if nothing is specified, the Gemara earlier says that we can presume that the Nochri is buying animals for slaughter. According to the opinion of the Rashbam quoted earlier (Tosfos 15a, DH "Aimur") who says that one can only presume slaughtering in the case of a cow, this is understandable.

וי"ל לפ"ה דהכא מיירי בעגלים וסייחים שאסור למכור להם


Answer: We can answer Rashi's explanation by saying that the case of our Gemara is regarding calves and small horses that are forbidden to be sold. (The Gemara's question is that being that the problem is that they will possibly be kept for work when they are older, do we say that a condition can be made to permit the sale or not? This is similar to the previous arguments between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding trees etc.)