BECHOROS 46 (28 Iyar) - Dedicated in honor of the birthday of Neti Linzer.

1)

TOSFOS DH d'Madrinan Lei Al Da'as Rabim (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä ãîãøéðï ìéä òì ãòú øáéí (äîùê)

åéù ìôøù ãìòðéï ðãøé àùúå àéï ìçì÷ áéï áøáéí áéï òì ãòú øáéí ëéåï ãáøáéí éù ìå äôøä ìøá äåðà ä''ä òì ãòú øáéí áðãøé àùúå

(a)

Answer: Regarding his wife's vows, we do not distinguish between b'Rabim and Al Da'as Rabim. Since Rav Huna holds that b'Rabim it can be annulled, the same applies to Al Da'as Rabim for his wife's vows.

åëé ôøéê äúí àøá äåðà åìéçåù ãéìîà àæìà ìâáé çëí åùøé ìä åîùðé ÷ñáø öøéê ìôøè àú äðãø

(b)

Implied question: [The Gemara] there challenged Rav Huna - he should be concerned lest she go to a Chacham, and he will permit her, and it answers that he holds that one must detail the vow;

äåä îöé ìùðåéé ãîãéø ìéä òì ãòú øáéí

1.

It could have answered that he imposes a vow on her Al Da'as Rabim!

àìà ãìà öøéê

(c)

Answer #1: It did not need [to give that answer].

åòåã é''ì ãøá äåðà ìéú ìéä ãàîéîø ãäà ã÷àîø àîéîø àôéìå ìî''ã ðãø ùäåãø áøáéí ëå' ìàå àôìåâúà ãàîåøàé ÷àé ãøá äåðà åøá ðçîï áøéù äùåìç (ùí)

(d)

Answer #2: Rav Huna argues with Ameimar. What Ameimar said "even the one who says that a vow b'Rabim can be annulled" - he does not refer to the argument of Amora'im, i.e. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman in Gitin (35b). (If Ameimar came to teach about Rav Huna's opinion, it would not help to answer that Rav Huna argues, for still it is difficult for how Ameimar understood Rav Huna!);

àìà àôìåâúà [ö"ì ãúðàé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãø' éäåãä åøáðï áñåó äùåìç (ùí ãó îå.):

1.

Rather, [he refers to] the argument of Tana'im, of R. Yehudah and Rabanan, in Gitin (46a).

2)

TOSFOS DH Amar Ameimar Hilchesa Afilu l'Man d'Amar v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø àîéîø äìëúà àôé' ìî''ã ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules that a vow b'Rabim can be annulled.)

áô' äùåìç (áâéèéï ìå.) âøñ äìëúà àôé' ìî''ã ëå' åáîëåú (ãó èæ.) âøñé' áøåá ñôøéí äìëúà ðãø ùäåãø áøáéí éù ìå äôøä [ö"ì åòì ãòú øáéí àéï ìå äôøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí]

(a)

Citation: In Gitin (36a) the text says [like here] "the Halachah is, even according to the opinion...", and in Makos (16a) the text in most Seforim says "the Halachah is, a Neder vowed b'Rabim can be annulled, and Al Da'as Rabim cannot be annulled."

[ö"ì ìâéøñà æå îùîò ãäëé äìëúà ãðãø ùäåãø áøáéí éù ìå äôøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(b)

Pesak: According to [the latter] text, it connotes that this is the Halachah, that a Neder vowed b'Rabim can be annulled;

(åìîàé) [ö"ì åàôé' ìñôøéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãâøñé' ðîé àôé' ìî''ã ðãø ùäåãø áøáéí ùìà áà òëùéå ìôñå÷ áäåãø áøáéí î''î éù ìã÷ã÷ îãäåöøê ìôñå÷ àéï ìå äôøä áòì ãòú øáéí ìë''ò îëìì ùñáø ãáøáéí éù ìå äôøä

1.

And even according to Seforim in which the text says "even according to the opinion that a Neder vowed b'Rabim...", that he does not come now to rule about a vow b'Rabim, even so we can infer from his need to rule that Al Da'as Rabim cannot be annulled according to everyone, that he holds that b'Rabim it can be annulled;

ãàé àéï ìå äôøä ëì ùëï áòì ãòú øáéí åùìà áìùåï ôñ÷ äéä ìå ìåîø àôé' ìî''ã [ö"ì ëå' - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí]

2.

If it could not be annulled, all the more so Al Da'as Rabim. He should have said without the expression of a ruling (i.e. "the Halachah is") "even according to the opinion..."!

åàò''â ãàñ÷éðï áô' äùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìä:) àìéáà ãøá ðçîï ãîãøéðï (ìéä) [ö"ì ìä - äøù"ù] áøáéí ãîùîò ãñ''ì äëé ã÷é''ì ëååúéä áãéðé åìòðéï ãéðà àéúùéì

(c)

Implied question: We conclude in Gitin (35b) that according to Rav Nachman, we impose a vow on her b'Rabim. This implies that we hold like this (that this helps, for it cannot be annulled), for we hold like him in Dinim (monetary laws), and it was asked regarding Dinim!

äà ôøéê áúø äëé äðéçà ìî''ã ëå' åìàå àîúðéúéï ãôø÷éï ãîééúé äúí ìçåãéä ÷àé àìà ÷àé ðîé àãøá ðçîï

(d)

Answer: [The Gemara] asks afterwards (36a) "this is fine for the opinion...", and it does not refer only to the Mishnah of our Perek brought there. Rather, it refers also to Rav Nachman. (Tzon Kodoshim - Rav Nachman answered "we impose... b'Rabim" for Rav Huna, but Rav Nachman himself holds that b'Rabim it can be annulled.)

(îãàãøéä) [ö"ì åîãàãøéä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðîé øá àçà ìääåà î÷øé ãøã÷é òì ãòú øáéí îùîò ã÷ñáø ãáøáéí éù ìå äôøä

(e)

Support (for Pesak): And also, since Rav Acha imposed a vow on the teacher of children Al Da'as Rabim, this implies that he holds that b'Rabim it can be annulled;

ãìà îéñúáø ìåîø ãìëê äåöøê òì ãòú øáéí åìà àîø äãéøå áøáéí ìôé ùìà äéå øáéí îæåîðéí ìôðéå

1.

It is unreasonable to say that the reason he needed Al Da'as Rabim, and did not say "impose a vow on him b'Rabim", because there were not Rabim available in front of him.

åøá éåñó ãàîø áòøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ÷æ.) (àîø) [àãåø] áøáéí ãìà àùúé ùëøà îùîò ã÷ñáø ãáøáéí àéï ìå äôøä

(f)

Implied question: Rav Yosef said in Pesachim (107a) "I will vow b'Rabim that I will not drink beer." This implies that he holds that b'Rabim it cannot be annulled!

ìà ÷é''ì äëé:

(g)

Answer: We do not hold like this.

3)

TOSFOS DH Aval li'Dvar Mitzvah Yesh Lo Hafarah

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì ìãáø îöåä éù ìå äôøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when there is a Heter for vows Al Da'as others.)

àåîø ø''ú ãîùåí ãîñúîà ðéçà ìäå ìøáéí

(a)

Explanation (R. Tam): This is because presumably, the Rabim that the vow was made on their Da'as are pleased [to allow Hafarah for a Mitzvah].

åòåã àîø ø''ú ãòì ãòú [øáéí] äééðå (ëùîôøù òì ãòú ôìåðé) [ö"ì ãåå÷à ëùîôøù òì ãòú ôìåðé åôìåðé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åôìåðé åàôéìå ùìà áôðéäí àáì òì ãòú [øáéí] ñúí ìàå ëìåí äåà

(b)

Explanation (R. Tam): Al Da'as Rabim is when he specifies "Al Da'as Ploni and Ploni and Ploni", and even not in front of them. However, "Al Da'as Rabim" Stam has no effect;

åòì ãòú éçéã (åàò''ô ùôéøù òì ãòúå éëåì çëí ìäúéø) [ö"ì àå ùðéí àò''ô ùðé÷áí áùí éëåì çëí ìäúéø áìà ãòúí - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

1.

And Al Da'as an individual or two people, even if he specified their names, a Chacham can permit without their consent.

4)

TOSFOS DH Yesh Bechor l'Nachalah v'Chulei Eizehu Bechor l'Nachalah...

úåñôåú ã"ä éù áëåø ìðçìä ëå' àéæäå áëåø ìðçìä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that other Mishnayos begin with the last matter taught.)

äëà ð÷éè àîàé ãôúç áéä åæéîðéï ãð÷è àãñìé÷ îéðéä ëãîôøù áøéù ðãøéí (ãó á:)

(a)

Observation: Here [the Mishnah first] explains the matter it began with. Sometimes it explains [first] the last matter mentioned, like it explains in Nedarim (2b).

5)

TOSFOS DH ha'Mapeles Sandal v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä äîôìú ñðãì ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of this.)

áôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ëå.) îôøù ñðãì ãúðï âáé áëåøåú ìîàé äìëúà ìáà àçøéå åëå'

(a)

Reference: In Nidah (26a) it explains, why was Sandal was taught in [our] Mishnah in Bechoros? It is for the child that comes after it [to teach that it is a Bechor only for inheritance].

åà''ú îä çéãåù äåà äà áäãéà ÷úðé ìä äëà

(b)

Question: What is the Chidush [of the Gemara's answer]? It is explicitly taught so here [in our Mishnah]!

åé''ì ãñ''ã ãáà àçøéå ãîúðéúéï ãäëà äééðå àåúå ùéåìã áòéáåø àçø åìà àåúå ùòí äñðãì ãøâéìåú äåà ùéåìã ÷åãí äñðãì

(c)

Answer: One might have thought that "the child that comes after it" is one that is born in another pregnancy, but not the one with the Sandal, for it is common that it is born before the Sandal (it does not "come after it");

åìäëé ôøéê ìîàé äìëúà ãúéôå÷ ìé ùäøé áà àçø äåìã ùòí äñðãì ãàéï ñðãì ùàéï òîå åìã

1.

Therefore, it asks, for which Halachah was this taught? I already know [a son from a later pregnancy is not a Bechor for Kohen], for it is after the one born with the Sandal, for there is no Sandal without a fetus!

åîôøù ãìàåúå åìã òöîå äðåìã òí äñðãì àöèøéê ìîúðééà ãôòîéí ùäåà áà àçø äñðãì

2.

It explains for that fetus itself born with the Sandal, it needed to teach, for sometimes it comes after the Sandal.

6)

TOSFOS DH veha'Yotzei Mechutach

úåñôåú ã"ä åäéåöà îçåúê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we discuss limbs other than the head.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãøåá àáøéí îçåúëéí ôåèøéí àú äøçí àáì øàù ìà ôèø áîçåúê

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): Most of the limbs are cut. They exempt the womb. However, the head does not exempt if it is cut.

åäê îéìúà ôìåâúà ãàîåøàé äéà áôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëè.) ãø' éåçðï ñáø äúí ãàôé' îçåúê äøàù ôåèø

(b)

Remark: Amora'im argue about this in Nidah (29a). R. Yochanan holds that even if the head was cut, it exempts.

7)

TOSFOS DH Nisgairah Me'uberes

úåñôåú ã"ä ðúâééøä îòåáøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is because a convert is like a newborn baby.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ åáòìä òîä åéìãä äåé àåúå åìã áëåø ìëäï ãôèø øçí áéùøàì äåà åìà ìðçìä ãäåøúå ùìà á÷ãåùä åìàå áø ðçìä äåà ãæøò îöøé øçîðà àô÷øéä ãëúéá åæøîú ñåñéí æøîúí

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Her husband [converted] with her, and she gave birth. That child is a Bechor for a Kohen, for he is Peter Rechem in Yisrael, but not for inheritance, for his conception was not in Kedushah, and he does not inherit, for the Torah was Mafkir the semen of a Nochri - "v'Zirmas Susim Zirmasam."

åáçðí ôé' èòí æä ãáìà''ä ìàå áø ðçìä äåà îùåí ãâø ùðúâééø ë÷èï ùðåìã ãîé åàéðå çùåá àáéå

(b)

Objection (and Explanation #2): There was no reason to explain this reason, for even without it, he does not inherit, for one who converted is like a newborn baby, and he is not considered [the baby's] father;

(åàò''â ãáòåãå îöøé) [ö"ì ãäà áòåãå âåé - öàï ÷ãùéí] çùåá àáéå âáé ðçìä åìà àîøé' øçîðà àô÷øéä ìòðéï æä ìæøòéä ãäà îöøé éåøù àáéå ãáø úåøä

1.

While he is still a Nochri, he is considered his father for inheritance, and we do not say that the Torah was Mafkir his semen for this, for a Nochri inherits his father mid'Oraisa!

åîéäå áôø÷ ðåùàéï òì äàðåñä (éáîåú ãó öç.) àîøéðï äà ãàîåø øáðï àéï àá ìîöøé ìàå îùåí ãùèåôé áæéîä åìà éãéò ãäà ùðé àçéï úàåîéí ãèéôä àçú [äéä] åðçì÷ä ìùúéí å÷úðé åàéï çééáéí îùåí àùú àç ù''î àô÷åøé àô÷øéä øçîðà ìæøòéä ãîöøé

(c)

Question: In Yevamos (98a) we say that Rabanan taught that a Nochri has no father - it is not because they wantonly have relations, and [the father] is not known, for two twins [come from] one drop of semen that split into two, and it teaches that they are not liable for Eshes Ach. This teaches that the Torah was Mafkir his semen for this, for a Nochri inherits his father mid'Oraisa - "v'Zirmas Susim Zirmasam."

ãöøéê ìèòîà ãàô÷øéä àò''â ãðúâééøå åìà ñâé áèòîà ãë÷èï ùðåìã ãîé åãáø úéîä äåà

1.

It needs the reason that [the Torah] was Mafkir it, even though they converted, and the reason "he is like a newborn baby" does not suffice. This is astounding!

åé''ì ãàé ìàå èòîà ãàô÷øéä ìæøòéä äéä ìðå ìàñåø ìîðñá ðùé ãäããé îùåí ãàúé ìàçìåôé áéùøàì åäúí îùîò ãàôé' àéñåøà ìéëà åàéï çééáéï ìàå ãå÷à

(d)

Answer: If not for the reason that [the Torah] was Mafkir his seed, we should forbid [the brothers] to marry each other's wives (after they are widowed or divorced), lest they be confused with Yisrael (and Yisraelim will come to marry their brothers' wives). There it connotes that there is no Isur, and "they are not liable" is not precise;

åâí äéä ìðå ìäöøéê çìéöä åäúí ÷úðé ìà çåìöéï åìà îééáîéï

1.

Also, we should have obligated Chalitzah, and there it teaches "they do not do Chalitzah or Yibum."

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Aidi d'Ba'i Lemisni Seifa Ben Tes v'Chulei (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàééãé ãáòé ìîéúðé ñéôà áï è' ëå' (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we did not need to bring the Seifa.)

îâåôä äåä îöé ìîéîø ãð÷è øàùå îùåí ãîùîò ãå÷à ðôì äà áø ÷ééîà äáà àçøéå áëåø ìðçìä ðîé ìà äåé

(a)

Implied question: He could have said that it mentioned his head due to this clause itself! It connotes that [this is only for] a Nefel, but a viable baby, the one after it is not a Bechor also for inheritance!

àìà ñéôà ãéé÷ ìéä áôùéèåú èôé:

(b)

Answer: It is easier to infer from the Seifa.

46b----------------------------------------46b

9)

TOSFOS DH d'Adam mi'Behemah Lo Yalif d'Leis Lah Prozdor

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàãí îáäîä ìà éìéó ãìéú ìä ôøåæãåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not the Prozdor mentioned in Nidah.)

äàé ôøåæãåø ãäëà åáøéù áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó ñç.) åáùáú ô' à''ø ò÷éáà (ãó ôå:) ùåéí

(a)

Assertion: The Prozdor here, and in Chulin (68a) and in Shabbos (86b) are the same;

åìà äåé ëé ääåà ãôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó îá:) ãîëé äåöéà åìã øàùå çåõ ìôøåæãåø äåé ëéìåã

1.

It is unlike in Nidah (42b), that from when the fetus stuck his head outside the Prozdor, he is considered born.

ãàé áôøåæãåø ãäúí (àîøéðï) [ö"ì àééøé - öàï ÷ãùéí] äëà îä éëåì (ìäçæé÷) [ö"ì ìäæé÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] äôøåæãåø ìòëá äìéãä ëéåï ùäøàù çåöä ìå

(b)

Proof: If here it discusses the Prozdor there, how can the Prozdor hurt, to impede [Halachic] birth, since the head is outside of it?!

àìà ôøåæãåø ãäúí äåà áéú äçéöåï åôøåæãåø ãäëà äåà òåáé äéøëéí ùîëñéí àú äøçí ùáéï éøëéí åäåä àîéðà ãìà çùéá øàù ìéãä áéöéàú äøçí

(c)

Explanation: Rather, the Prozdor there is the outer room [of the womb], and the Prozdor here is the thickness of the thighs that cover the womb, which is between the thighs. One might have thought that it is not considered birth when the head leaves the womb [as long as it is between the thighs].

åàéï úéîä òì ùäìùåï ùåä åàéï ôéøåùí ùåä

(d)

Implied question: Why does the Gemara use the same word, and the meaning is not the same?!

ãëé ä''â àùëçï ìòéì áô' äìå÷ç áäîä (ãó ë.) ãèéðåó ôåèø ááëåøä ãçùéá åìã åìà äåé ëääéà èéðåó ãô' äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëè.) ãøåá äéåìãåú îèðôåú

(e)

Answer: We find like this above (20a) that Tinuf (a dissolved fetus; alternatively, bubbles of blood) exempts from Bechorah, for it is considered a child, and it is unlike Tinuf in Nidah (29a), that most [animals] that who give birth secrete Tinuf (fluids, the day before giving birth).

10)

TOSFOS DH Tiyuvta d'Shmuel

úåñôåú ã"ä úéåáúà ãùîåàì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains other Sugyos according to this ruling.)

ìà äåé îöé ìà÷ùåéé ìùîåàì îäà ãúðï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òæ.) ùìéà ùéöúä î÷öúä àñåøä áàëéìä

(a)

Implied question: Why couldn't we challenge Shmuel from the Mishnah in Chulin (77a), that if the minority of a Shilya left [the womb before Shechitah], one may not eat it?

ããéé÷éðï îéðä äúí áãéù (ôéø÷éï) [ö"ì ôø÷à - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] (ãó ñç.) ãáéöéàú øàù äåéà ìéãä îãàñøéðï ìäå áéöéàú î÷öú ãùîà äøàù éùðå áàåúå î÷öú

1.

We infer from it there (68a) that exit of the head is birth, since we forbid when the minority left, lest the head was in that minority!

ãäééðå ãå÷à ááäîä àáì àãí ìà ùîòéðï îäúí

(b)

Answer: That is only for an animal, but we cannot learn from a person from there.

ãäà ã÷úðé ñéôà ëñéîï åìã áàùä ëê ñéîï åìã ááäîä

(c)

Implied question: The Seifa there (77a) taught "what is a sign of a child in a woman, so is a sign of a child in an animal"!

äééðå ìòðéï ùìéà ãäåéà ñéîï åìã

(d)

Answer: That refers to a Shilya, which is a sign of a child (but not how much must leave to be considered birth).

åàéï ìä÷ùåú ãááäîä äî÷ùä äéëé ãéé÷ îéðä ãáéöéàú øàù äåé ëéìåã ãìîà äà ãàñåøä îùåí ãâæøéðï î÷öúä àèå øåáà ëãàîø áô''÷ ãá''÷ (ãó éà.)

(e)

Implied question: In Chulin, how did we infer that exit of the head is birth? Perhaps it is forbidden because we decree the minority due to the majority, like it says in Bava Kama (11a)!

ãàí àéúà ãáéöéàú øàù ìà äåé ìéãä ìà äéä øàåé ìâæåø ëéåï ãáî÷öú àé àôùø ìáà áùåí ôòí ìéãé çùéáåú ìéãä

(f)

Answer: If exit of the head were not birth, it would not be proper to decree, since it is impossible to ever be considered birth through the minority.

åà''ú ëéåï ãàéúåúá ùîåàì îàé äàé ã÷àîø áôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëå.) âáé äñðãì åìã ãàéú ìéä çéåúà îëé ðôé÷ øéùéä äåéà ìéä ìéãä ñðãì òã ãðôé÷ øåáà

(g)

Question: Since Shmuel was refuted, why does it say in Nidah (26a) regarding a Sandal "a fetus has life, therefore his head comes out, he is considered born. A Sandal is not [considered born] until its majority leaves"?

áìàå èòîà ãçéåúà ðîé äà àôéìå [ö"ì ðôìéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îúéí äøàù ôåèø

1.

Even without the reason of life, even for dead Nefalim, the head exempts!

åé''ì ãçéåúà ìàå ãå÷à àìà øàåé ìçéåúà

(h)

Answer #1: "Life" is not precise. Rather, it means proper to live;

åàâá ãð÷è ðîé äúí ìòéì äàé ìéùðà åìã ãàéú áéä çéåúà ñøéê åìà ðôé÷ ñðãì ãìéú áéä çéåúà ùøé÷ åðôé÷ ð÷èéä ðîé áúø äëé

1.

Since it mentioned this expression there above "a fetus, which has life, clings [to the wall of the womb], and does not leave [first]. A Sandal, which has no life, is smooth, and comes out [first]", it mentioned this also afterwards.

åéù ñôøéí ãâøñ äúí åìã ãàéú áéä çéåúà îëé ðôé÷ øåáéä ñðãì òã ãðôé÷ ëåìéä åéù ìôøù ãøåáéä ã÷àîø äééðå øåáà ãøéùà

(i)

Answer #2: Some Seforim there say "a fetus, which has life, once it majority leaves (he is considered born). A Sandal [is not considered born] until all of it leaves." We can explain that "majority" means the majority of the head;

åàéú ãâøí áäãéà (äëà) [ö"ì äëé îëé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ðô÷ øåáà ãøéùà

1.

Some texts explicitly say "once the majority of the head leaves."

åäà ãàîøé' äúí áôø÷ äîôìú (ãó ëè.) áùîòúéï ãéöà îçåúê àå îñåøñ [îùéöà øåáå ä''æ ëéìåã] äà ëú÷ðå äøàù ôåèø ø' éåñé àåîø îùéöà ëú÷ðå ìçééí

(j)

Citation (Nidah 29a): In the Sugya of "if the fetus came out cut up or Mesuras (feet first)", from when the majority leaves it is considered born. This implies that if it came out properly, the head exempts. R. Yosi says, from when it comes out properly alive.

ìà ëîå ùôéøù øáéðå çððàì ãìçééí äééðå áø ÷ééîà

(k)

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): "Alive" means viable.

ãäà àôé' áðôìéí äøàù ôåèø ãàéúåúá ùîåàì äëà

(l)

Rejection: Even for Nefalim, the head exempts, for Shmuel was refuted here!

àìà ëîå ùôéøù ùí á÷åðè' ëú÷ðå ìçééí ùìí ìàôå÷é îçåúê

(m)

Explanation #2: Rather, it is like Rashi explained there. "Properly alive" means whole, to exclude cut up.

11)

TOSFOS DH Le'asuyei Ha d'Tanu Rabanan Giyores she'Yatza Padachas Veladah...

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàúåéé äà ãú''ø âéåøú ùéöà ôãçú åìãä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of this.)

åà''ú îàé çéãåù äåà æä áäê îéìúà èôé îùàø ãáøéí ãçùåá áäï ëéìåã ëâåï ìæ÷å÷ àùú àçéå ìéáåí åìôèåø îï äéáåí åääåøâå çééá åùàø ãáøéí äùðåééí áô' éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó îâ:)

(a)

Question: What is the Chidush of this matter more than other matters for which it is considered like born, e.g. to obligate his brother's wife to do Yibum (or Chalitzah, i.e. if a man died without children, and his only brother is this baby), and to exempt from Yibum (if he was born before his father died), and one who kills him is Chayav [Misah], and other matters taught there in Nidah (43b)!

åé''ì ãàéöèøéê äëà ìàùîåòéðï ãñ''ã àò''â ãéöéàú äøàù çùåá ìéãä î''î ìéãú ùàø äâåó ùéöà àçøé ëï á÷ãåùä çùåá ëîå ëï ìéãä åðéúéá ìä éîé èåîàä åéîé èäøä

(b)

Answer: It needs to teach here, for one might have thought that even though exit of the head is considered birth, in any case birth of the rest of the body, which left in Kedushah, is likewise considered like birth, and she should get days of Tum'ah and days of Taharah.

12)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima Yakir Kesiv

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà éëéø ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why elsewhere the Gemara did not expound so.)

úéîä áô' òùøä éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï ãó òç:) åáô' éù ðåçìéï (á''á ãó ÷ëæ:) ùãåç÷ ìøáðï ãøáé éäåãä éëéø ìîä ìé ìéîà ãàéöèøéê ìëããøùéðï äëà

(a)

Question: In Kidushin (78b) and in Bava Basra (127b, the Gemara) struggles [to explain] according to Rabanan of R. Yehudah, why it says Yakir. (R. Yehudah expounds that Yakir teaches that a father is believed to disqualify a son, e.g. by saying that he is not his Bechor.) It should say that Rabanan need it for like we expound here!

ãàôé' øáé éåçðï ìà ôìéâ

1.

Implied suggestion: We did not, for R. Yochanan argues (he does not expound so).

ãäà ã÷àîø àó ìðçìä îùåí ã÷ñáø ãôãçú ðîé äåéà äéëøà

2.

Rejection: (He agrees.) He says "even for inheritance" because he holds that also the forehead is recognition!

åâí ãåç÷ áéù ðåçìéï (ùí) ìø''î ãàîø àãí î÷ðä ëå' ãàúà éëéø ìðëñéí ùðôìå ìå ëùäåà âåññ

(b)

Strengthening of question: Also in Bava Basra there (the Gemara) struggles according to R. Meir, who says that Adam Makneh [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, why must the Torah teach that a man is believed to identify his Bechor? Even without this, he could be Makneh to him an extra portion of what he has and will acquire! It answers that] Yakir comes [to teach that he is believed even] for property that he will acquire when he is Goses (close to death. A Kinyan does not help for such property. Why didn't it say that Yakir teaches like here?)

1.

Note: This is also in Kidushin! Why did Tosfos mention specifically in Bava Basra? Perhaps the words "b'Yesh Nochlin" should be deleted from Tosfos. Alternatively, in Tosfos' text in Kidushin, it did not ask according to R. Meir.

åé''ì ãäúí ÷ùéà ìéä ìùåï éëéø ãîùîò ùéù ëç áäëøú äàá

(c)

Answer: There, the expression "Yakir" is difficult to [the Makshan]. It connotes that the father's recognition has power.

13)

TOSFOS DH Mai Kar'ah Hakaras Peneihem Ansah Bam

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ÷øàä äëøú ôðéäí òðúä áí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the forehead is needed to recognize the face.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãäëøú ôøöåó ôðéäí òãåúï äåà àìîà ôøöåó ôðéí ðîé áòé

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Recognition of their faces is their testimony. This shows that also the face is needed (the forehead alone does not suffice).

åúéîä (ãáéáîåú) [ö"ì ãäëà åáéáîåú (ãó ÷ë. åùí ã''ä äëøú) îééúé ÷øà àáøééúà åìà îééúé ìéä àîúðé' ãô' áúøà ãáéáîåú ãàééúé ìòéì ãàéï îòéãéï àìà òì ôøöåó ôðéí òí äçåèí - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(b)

Objection: Here and in Yevamos (120a) it brings the verse regarding the Beraisa, and not regarding the Mishnah in Yevamos (120a) "we testify only about the face with the nose"!

[ö"ì åðøàä ìôøù ãàôãçú ãáøééúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îééúé ÷øà ãäëøú ôðéäí òðúä áí îùîò ùéù ãáø áàãí ùîëéøéí òì éãå àú äôðéí åäééðå ôãçú ãçåèí áëìì ôøöåó ôðéí äåà

(c)

Explanation #2: Regarding the forehead of the Beraisa, it brings the verse. "Hakaras Peneihem Ansah Bam" connotes that there is something in man that through it, we recognize the face, i.e. the forehead. [You cannot say that it is the nose,] for the nose is included in the face!

åäúí áéáîåú (ùí) áúø äàé ÷øà îééúé òåáãà ãàáà áø îøúà ãäåå îñ÷å áéä ãáé øéù âìåúà æåæé àééúé ÷éøà ãá÷ ááìééúà ãáú ààôåúéä çìó ÷îééäå åìà áù÷øåä:

(d)

Support: And there in Yevamos, after this verse, it brings the episode of Aba bar Marsa, who owed money to the Exilarch's house. He used wax to stick remnants of garments on his forehead, and passed in front of them, and they did not recognize him.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF