1)

TOSFOS DH MIDI D'HAVAH A'EVED V'AMAH

úåñ' ã"ä îéãé ãäåä àòáã åàîä

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with the source that Rashi cites.)

ìà ëôéøåù øù"é ùôéøù îùåí ãúðï áäçåáì (ì÷îï ãó ôæ.) 'òáã åàùä ôâéòúï ... ' ...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rashi explains - because we learned in the Mishnah (later, Daf 87.) 'Eved ve'Ishah Pegi'asan Ra'ah'.

ãà"ë, ä"ì ìîéð÷è 'òáã åàùä'.

1.

Refutation: Because in that case, it ought to have said 'Eved ve'Ishah'.

àìà îôøù ø"ú ãð÷è 'òáã åàîä', îùåí ã÷àé à'îúðé' ãñåó îñëú éãéí.

(b)

Explanation: Only like Rabeinu Tam explained, that it mentions 'Eved ve'Amah' with reference to the Mishnah at the end of Maseches Yadayim.

åèòîà îùåí 'ùîà é÷ðéèðå øáå' ãáñîåê îôåøù äúí.

1.

Reason: And the reason is because the reason that 'maybe his master will make him angry' that the Gemara will mention shortly, is mentioned there.

2)

TOSFOS DH LA'AV AF-AL-GAV D'KAVANASO L'HAZIK AFILU HACHI PETURIN

úåñ' ã"ä ìàå àò"â ãëååðúå ìäæé÷ àô"ä ôèåøéï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why the Gemara does not learn Eved and Amah from a Kal ve'Chomer, and other problems with the Sugya.)

åà"ú, òáã åàîä âåôéä ðéìó î÷"å ãùï ìäúçééá, ëéåï ãàëúé ìà éãò èòîà ã'ùîà é÷ðéèðå øáå'?

(a)

Question #1: Why do we not learn Eved and Amah themselves from Shein with a Kal va'Chomer, seeing as we do not yet know the reason that 'maybe his master will make him angry'?

åò"÷, ëéåï ãéãò øéùà ãîúðéúéï ãîñëú éãéí (ô"ã î"æ) îãð÷è 'òáã åàîä' åìà ð÷è 'òáã åàùä', à"ë îñúîà éãò ñéôà?

(b)

Question #2: Moreover, since the Gemara knows the Reisha of the Mishnah in Yadayim (Perek 4, Mishnah 7), seeing as it mentioned 'Eved ve'Amah and not Eved ve'Ishah (as we explained in the previous Dibur), it is fair to assume that it also knew the Seifa?

åò"÷, ãòáã åàîä ëùàéï ëååðúï ìäæé÷ ðîé ôèéøé, åà"ë îàé îééúé?

(c)

Question #3: Furthermore, bearing in mind that Eed ve'Amah are Patur even if they not have the intention of damaging, what is the Gemara saying?

åé"ì, ãùôéø äåä éãò äî÷ùä èòîà ã'ùîà é÷ðéèðå øáå' ...

(d)

Answer: The questioner did indeed know the reason of 'Shema Yakniteihu Rabo' ...

åàô"ä ôøéê ëéåï ãòáã åàîä ôèåøéï åàôéìå áàéï ëååðúï ìäæé÷, åàò"â ãìà ùééê èòîà ã'ùîà é÷ðéèðå øáå', ãàðåñ äåà; ãôòîéí ãðúëååðå åéàîøå ìà ðúëååðå ...

1.

Answer (cont.): Yet the Gemara asks that seeing as Eved ve'Amah are Patur even when they do not intend to do damage, even though the reason of 'Shema Yakniteihu Rabo' does not then apply, since he is an Oneis; because sometimes they had the intention of damaging but claim that they didn't.

ìëê ôèéøé áëì òðéï. ðîöà ùëååðúï âåøí äôèåø ...

2.

Answer (cont.): That is why they are Patur in all cases. And it transpires that his intention to damage is the cause of the P'tur (See Maharam).

ä"ð ÷øï ùëåðúå ìäæé÷, éù ìðå ìôåèøå.

3.

Answer (concl.): Consequently, by Keren too, where his intention is to damage, one ought to declare him Patur.

åøá àùé ôé' ãàôéìå áàéï ëååðúå ìäæé÷, àéëà èòîà øáä.

(e)

Rav Ashi: Whereas according to Rav Ashi, even where he does not intend to damage, there is ample reason to declare him Patur.

3)

TOSFOS DH K'SHE'HIZIK CHAV HA'MAZIK ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ëùäæé÷ çá äîæé÷ ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies to which 'ke'she'Hizik ... ' this refers.)

ìà äééðå 'ëùäæé÷' ÷îà àìà îàéãê 'ëùäæé÷' îøáä ìä.

(a)

Clarification: This refers, not to the first 'ke'she'Hizik', but to the second one.

4)

TOSFOS DH L'MECHSHEVEIH B'HADI MUMIN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ìîçùáéä áäãé îåòãéï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses Shmuel's version of the Sugya and poses a general Kashya.)

åùîåàì ñ"ì ãìà ä"ì ìàùîåòéðï áñéôà, ëéåï ãìà àùîòéðï ùåí çéãåù èôé îáøéùà.

(a)

Shmuel's Reasoning: Whereas according to Shmuel, the Tana ought to have mentioned the Seifa, seeing as it does teach us anything more than the Reisha.

àáì ùï åøâì, àò"â ãúðà ìéä áøéùà, úðà ìéä áñéôà âáé îåòãéï, îùåí çéãåù ãîôøù 'äùï îåòãú ìàëåì àú äøàåé ìä åäøâì îåòãú ìùáø ãøê äéìåëä'.

1.

Shmuel's Reasoning (cont.): This is not the case by Shein ve'Regel, since, even though it mentions it in the Reisha, it mentioned it again in the Seifa together with the Mu'adin, on account of the Chidush which it states 'Shein is Mu'ad to eat whatever is fit for it, and Regel to break as it walks along.

å÷øï ðîé úðà ...

2.

Shmuel's Reasoning (cont.): And it mentions Keren too ...

åàò"â ãúðà áøéùà 'ëùäæé÷ çá äîæé÷' ìàúåéé ÷øï ...

(b)

Implied Question: Even though it already mentioned it in the Reisha (where, as we learned 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik', to include Keren ...

î"î úðà ìéä áñéôà, îùåí ãúðé ìéä âáé çîùä úîéí, îù"ä úðà ìéä ðîé áäãé îåòãé.

(c)

Answer: It nevertheless mentions it again in the Seifa, because, since it mentions it in the case of the five Tamin, it mentions it also by the five Mu'adin.

åà"ú, àîàé ìà çùéá àù åáåø âáé îåòãéí?

(d)

Question: Why does the Tana not mention Eish and Bor together with the Mu'adin?

åé"ì, ãìà çùéá àìà áòìé çééí, àáì áåø åàù ëê ìé ôòí øàùåðä ëîå ôòí â' åã'.

(e)

Answer: It only mentions live creatures, but by Eish and Bor, what difference does it make whether it is the first time or the third or fourth times?

5)

TOSFOS DH KI'RE'I ADAM SHE'EIN MESHALEM ES HA'KOFER

úåñ' ã"ä ëøàé àãí ùàéï îùìí àú äëåôø

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why this is a Chumra, in spite of the fact that Adam is seemingly Patur from Kofer on account of the principle 'Kiyem leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'.)

ä÷ùä øéá"à, îàé çåîøà äéà æå? äàé ã'àéï îùìí àú äëåôø' îùåí ã'÷éí ìéä áãøáä îéðéä'?

(a)

Question: The Riva asks why this is a Chumra, seeing as the P'tur of Adam is based on the principle 'Kiyem leih be'de'Rabah mineih'?

åúéøõ, ãùåââ ðîé ôèåø, îãúðà ãáé çæ÷éä;

(b)

Answer: And he answers that it is because Shogeg by Adam is also Patur, due to the Limud of 'Tana de'bei Chizkiyah'.

åàåø"é, ãìàå ôøëà äéà ëìì, ãìà îôèø îùåí '÷éí ìéä áãøáä îéðéä'.

(c)

Refutation of Question #1: According to the Ri however, the question does not get off the ground, since Adam is not Patur from Kofer on account of 'Kiyem leih be'de'Rabah mineih' ...

åëàï ðîé àéï ùééê ìäæëéø úðà ãáé çæ÷éä, ãì÷îï áô"á (ãó ëå.) îùîò ãàé ìàå ÷øà ã"òìéå", 'åìà òì äàãí', äåä éìôéðï àãí îùåø ùéúçééá îæéã îéúä åëåôø ...

(d)

Refutation of Question #2: Nor can one mention Tana de'beih Chizkiyah here, seeing as later in the second Perek (on Daf 26.) it implies that if not for the D'rashah "Alav" 've'Lo al ha'Adam', we would have learned from Shor that Adam is Chayav both Misah and Kofer ...

åî"òìéå" ôèøé ìéä àôéìå ùåââ, ãåîéà ãùåø, ãàéï îæéã ìùåø.

1.

Refutation of Question #2 (cont.): And it is from "Alav" that we declare him Patur even be'Shogeg, similar to an ox, which is not subject to Meizid.

åúðà ãáé çæ÷éä ãôåèø àôéìå ùåââ ...

(e)

Implied Question: And Tana de'bei Chizkiyah which renders Patur even be'Shogeg ...

äééðå îîåï ùäæé÷ áùòú çéåá îéúä ...

(f)

Answer: Is speaking specifically about a case where one damages simultaneously to killing

åìàôå÷é îîàï ããøéù áô' àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìä. åùí) 'äà àí éäéä àñåï, ìà éòðù', ããå÷à ãéï àñåï

1.

Answer (cont.): And it comes to preclude from the opinion that Darshens in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 34: & 35.) that if there will be an accident (i.e. if the woman dies), then he is Patur from damages - Davka Din Ason (i.e. wherever the man is not Chayav Misah, he is obligated to pay) ...

àúà çæ÷éä, åàùîåòéðï ìàå ãå÷à ãéï àñåï ìà éòðù, àìà àôé' ùåââ, ìà éòðù.

2.

Answer (cont.): Therefore Chizkiyah comes to teach us that the Din of Ason is La'av Davka, and that even if it is only a case of Shogeg, he need not pay either.

6)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN D'KAYEF U'PASHIT URCHEIH HU

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ãëééó åôùéè àåøçéä äåà

(Summary: Tosfos, citing a Yerushalmi, presents a major Halachos in Hilchos Adam ha'Mazik.)

áéøåùìîé éù ãéùï ìà îçééá àìà ëùäùëéá òöîå àöì äëìéí, àáì àí éùï åäáéàå ëìéí àöìå åùáøï, ôèåø.

(a)

Halachah #1: The Yerushalmi states that Yashen is only Chayav if one lies down in the vicinity of vessels, but that if one lies down and others bring vessels bring the vessels to the vicinity of the sleeper and he subsequently breaks them, he is Patur ...

ãäí âøîå ìå.

1.

Reason: Because it is their fault.

åëï àí äéä éùï åäìê çáéøå ìéùï àöìå åäæé÷å æä àú æä äøàùåï ôèåø åäàçøåï çééá.

(b)

Halachah #2: Similarly, if after Reuven lies down to sleep and Shimon lies down next to him and they damage each other, Reuven is Patur and Shimon, Chayav.

7)

TOSFOS DH U'L'TA'AMECH

úåñ' ã"ä åìèòîéê

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ôéøåù àôéìå úéîà 'îáòä' æä äùï.

(a)

Clarification: In other words, even if 'Mav'eh' is equivalent to Shein.

8)

TOSFOS DH ADAM SHEMIRAS GUFO ALAV

úåñ' ã"ä àãí ùîéøú âåôå òìéå

(Summary: Tosfos extrapolates a change of text in the Mishnah from here.)

îëàï îùîò ãìà âøñéðï áîúðé' 'åîîåðà' ...

(a)

Change of Text: From here it seems that we need to erase the word 'u'Mamona' from our Mishnah ...

îãìà ôøéê ðîé äëà 'àãí îîåðå äåà?'.

1.

Reason #1: Seeing as it does not also ask here 'Is Adam his Mamon?'

åîùåí áåø åàù ðîé öøéê ìîç÷å, ëãôéøùúé ìòéì (â: ã"ä åîîåðê).

2.

Reason #2: In fact, one also needs to erase it on account of Bor and Eish, as Tosfos explained above (Daf 3: DH 'u'Mamoncha').

4b----------------------------------------4b

9)

TOSFOS DH V'EIMA MAV'EH ZEH HA'MAYIM

úåñ' ã"ä åàéîà îáòä æä äîéí

(Summary: After explaining how the Gemara arrives at this suggestion, Tosfos discusses its source, clarifies various other Issues connected with it.)

ôé' - ëéåï ã÷øà ìà ãéé÷é ìà ëîø åìà ëîø.

(a)

Clarification: Seeing as the Pesukim support neither of the two stated opinions.

åà"ú, åäéëï ëúéá îéí áúåøä?

(b)

Question: Where is 'water' written in the Torah?

åé"ì, î"åùìç", åëï äåà àåîø (àéåá ä) "åùåìç îéí òì ôðé çåöåú".

(c)

Answer: In the word "ve'Shilach", as it is written in Iyov (chapter 5) "And He sends (ve'Shilach) water over the surface of the streets".

åàò"â ã"ùéìç áòéøä" ááäîä àééøé ...

(d)

Implied Question: Even though "ve'Shilah es Be'iroh" is speaking with reference to animals?

î"î, îéí ðîé îùúîòé îéðéä, îãàô÷éä øçîðà áäîä áìùåï "åùìç".

(e)

Answer: Nevertheless, we can learn water from there too, since the Torah uses the expression "ve'Shilach".

åìòéì, ãáòé 'áîàé îå÷îéðï ìä?' ìà îöé îå÷îéðï áîéí.

(f)

Implied Question: And above (on Daf 3.), when the Gemara asked how we establish it ('ve'Shilach") it did not (initially) want to establish it by water ...

ãëé ðîé îå÷îú áîéí, àéú ìï ìàå÷åîé áîéìé ãùåø, îãëúéá "áòéøä".

(g)

Answer: Because even if we did, we would have to establish it in connection with an ox, since it writes "Be'iroh".

åà"ú, åäðé îéí ä"ã, àé ãîù÷éì òìéä áã÷à ãîéà åáëç øàùåï, ëçå äåà?

(h)

Question: How does this 'water' speak? If the Mazik poured over it/him a stream of water with Ko'ach Rishon, that is his Ko'ach (and therefore falls under the category of 'Adam').

åàé áëç ùðé, âøîà áòìîà äåà, ëãàîøéðï áäðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï ãó òæ:)?

1.

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is only via Ko'ach Sheini, that is merely G'rama (which is Patur), as we learned in 'ha'Nisrafin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 77:)?

åé"ì, ãîééøé áëç ùðé, å÷î"ì ãáëç ùðé ðîé çééá.

(i)

Answer #1: It speaks in a case of Ko'ach Sheini, and the Tana is teaching us that Ko'ach Sheini is also Chayav.

à"ð áúø ãðçå.

(j)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking where it damages after it has landed.

åìà ãîé ìáåø, ëâåï 'ôåú÷éï áéáåúéäï' ãì÷îï (ãó ì.), åàò"â ãàúé áîä äöã.

(k)

Implied Question: An it is not comparable to 'Bor', such as in the case of 'Poskin Biboseihen' later (Daf 6.), which, even though the Gemara learns it from a Mah ha'Tzad (which includes Bor) ...

äåä àîéðà ãàéöèøéê ìëåúáå ìçééá ëìéí, ãîáåø ìà äåä ùîòéðï.

(l)

Answer: We would have thought that one nevertheless needs to write it, in order to render it Chayav on Keilim, which it would not be if we were to learn it from Bor.

åäåä îöé ìîéôøê 'îàé ìà æä åæä ùéù áäï øåç çééí'?

(m)

Question: The Gemara could have asked what the Mishnah then means when it writes 'Lo Zeh va'Zeh she'Yesh bahen Ru'ach Chayim'?

àìà ãáìàå äëé îùðé ùôéø.

(n)

Answer: Only it answers the question well in any case.

10)

TOSFOS DH MI K'SIV MAYIN NIV'U

úåñ' ã"ä îé ëúéá îéí ðáòå

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the implications of the question.)

åà"ú, ëé ëúéá ðîé "ðáòå", ìà îéúå÷îà îúðéúé' áîéí, ãîé ÷úðé 'ðáòä', ëããéé÷ ìòéì (ãó â:) âáé ùï?

(a)

Question: Even if the Torah had written 'Niv'u', the Mishnah could not be speaking about Mayim, since it does not say 'Niv'eh' (in the Nif'al form), as the Gemara asked earlier (on Daf 3:) in connection with 'Shein' (See Maharsha).

åé"ì, ãìà ùééê ìà÷ùåéé àìà âáé ùï ãìéúðé 'ðáòä' ...

(b)

Answer: The question that it ought to have said 'Niv'eh' applies only to Shein ...

ùäùï òöîå ðáòä, ãîáòä îùîò îâìä [ãáø àçø ùäéä îëåñä] ...

1.

Reason: Since the tooth itself is revealed, whereas 'Mav'eh' implies that it reveals something else that is covered.

àáì áîéí ùééê ùôéø ìéùðà ã'îáòä'. ùäîéí øåúçéí ÷øåééí îáòáòéí.

2.

Reason (cont.): Whereas by water, the term 'Mav'eh' is suitable, since boiling water is called 'Me'vab'in' (meaning that it bubbles).

11)

TOSFOS DH SHELOSHAH-ASAR AVOS NEZIKIN

úåñ' ã"ä ùìùä òùø àáåú ðæé÷éï

(Summary: Tosfos explains that the thirteen are really only twelve.)

åãéðéäí é"á, ãùåëø ëùåîø ùëø äåé àå ëùåîø çðí äåé.

(a)

Clarification: And their Dinim number twelve, seeing a Socher either has the same Din as a Shomer Sachar or as a Shomer Chinam.

12)

TOSFOS DH SHOMER CHINAM V'HA'SHO'EL

úåñ' ã"ä ùåîø çðí åäùåàì

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana presents them in a different order than the Torah.)

ùåîø çðí ôèåø îï äëì çåõ îï äôùéòä, ùåàì çééá áëì çåõ îîúä îçîú îìàëä, åðåùà ùëø çééá áî÷öú áâðéáä åàáéãä åôèåø áàåðñéï.

(a)

Clarification: A Shomer Chinam is Patur from everything except for negligence, a Sho'el is Chayav from everything except for where the animal dies because of the work that it performed, whereas a Shomer Sachar is Chayav for some things (theft and loss) and Patur from others (where an Oneis occurred)

ìëê ð÷è ìäå áæä äñãø åìà ëñãø ùðëúá áôøùä.

1.

Clarification (cont.): This is why the Tana lists them in this way and not in the way that they are listed in the Parshah.

13)

TOSFOS DH T'REI GAVNI ADAM

úåñ' ã"ä úøé âååðé àãí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana does not also list three kinds of Shor.)

åà"ú, ëéåï ãúðé úøé âååðé àãí, ìéúðé ðîé â' àáåú áùåø - ä÷øï åäùï åäøâì?

(a)

Question: Just as the Tana lists two kinds of Adam, why does he not also List three kinds of Avos in connection with Shor - Keren, Shein and Regel?

åé"ì, ãðéçà ìéä ìëìåì ëåìí áùåø ëîå úðà ãîúðé'.

(b)

Answer: He prefers to incorporate them all under the heading of 'Shor', like the Tana of our Mishnah.

14)

TOSFOS DH V'EIDIM ZOMEMIN

úåñ' ã"ä åòãéí æåîîéï

(Summary: Tosfos cites a Machlokes Rishonim as to why they are Chayav even if the person on whom they testify already paid.)

ôéøù øéá"à ãàôéìå ùéìí òì ôé äòãéí æåîîéï, çééáéï ...

(a)

Halachah: The Riva explains that they are Chayav even if the litigant paid on account of their testimony ...

ãìà ùééê áîîåï "ëàùø æîí", 'åìà ëàùø òùä' ...

1.

Reason #1: This is because the principle of "Ka'asher Zamam", 've'Lo Ka'asher Asah" does not apply to Mamon ...

ãàôùø áçæøä.

2.

Source: Seeing as it is possible to return the money.

åø"é îôøù ãìà öøéê ìäàé èòîà, ãâáé îîåï îçééáéðï ìäå á÷"å ãâáé îîåï 'òåðùéï îï äãéï'.

(b)

Reason #2: The Ri however, maintains that this reason is unnecessary, because by Mamon one declares the Eidim Zomemin Chayav with a Kal va'Chomer, since in the realm of Mamon, we say 'Onshin min ha'Din.

åäà ãàîøéðï áîëåú (ãó ä:) 'äøâå, àéï ðäøâéí'?

(c)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Makos (Daf 5:) 'Hargu, Ein Neheragin' ...

äééðå îùåí ãäúí 'àéï òåðùéï îï äãéï'.

(d)

Answer: That is on account of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din'.

15)

TOSFOS DH MENASECH

úåñ' ã"ä îðñê

(Summary: Tosfos connects this with a Machlokes in Gitin.)

ôìéâé áä áäðæ÷éï (âéèéï ðá: åùí) - çã àîø 'îðñê' îîù, åçã àîø îòøá'.

(a)

Comment: They argue over this in ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 52: & 53.). One opinion says that it is actual 'Menasech' (pouring out wine to Avodah-Zarah), whereas the other opinion defines it as 'Me'arev' (mixing Yayin Nesech with Kasher wine).