1)

TOSFOS DH EIN TZ'RICHIN P'RUZBUL

úåñ' ã"ä àéï öøéëéï ôøåæáåì

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the reason for this ruling.)

ãùèøåú ùìäí ãîé ëîñåøéï ìá"ã, ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ.

(a)

Clarification: Rashi explains - Since their Sh'taros are considered as if they were handed over to the Beis-Din -.

åà"ú, îìåä òì ôä îàé àéëà ìîéîø - ãëåúáéï òìéä ôøåæáåì, ëãîåëç áäùåìç (âéèéï ãó ìå.)?

(b)

Question: What is then the reason for oral loans, on which one also needs to write a P'ruzbul, as is evident in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 36a)?

åé"ì, ãäåé ëàéìå äçåá ùìäí îñåø ìá"ã ...

(c)

Answer: It is (also) considered as if their debt has been handed over to Beis-Din ...

åàôé' àéï ììåä ÷ø÷ò ...

(d)

Implied Question: ... and even if the debtor does not own land ...

î÷ðéí ìå çëîéí ÷ø÷ò áùáéì ú÷ðú äéúåîéí ...

(e)

Answer: ... one is Makneh to them land in the form of a Takanah on behalf of Yesomim ...

ùàéï ëåúáéï ôøåæáåì àìà òì ä÷ø÷ò.

1.

Source: ... since one only writes a P'ruzbul on land.

2)

TOSFOS DH HAREI HU MU'AD L'SHABASOS

úåñ' ã"ä äøé äåà îåòã ìùáúåú

(Summary: Tosfos, citing the Yerushalmi, presents the reason for this ruling.)

îôøù áéøåùìîé ìôé ùøàä àåúí áîìáåùéí ðàéí àçøéí, åçùåáéí áòéðéå ðëøéí åàéðå îëéøí.

(a)

Clarification: The Yerushalmi explains that because it saw them dressed in their Shabbos finery, he viewed them as strangers and whom it does not recognizw.

3)

TOSFOS DH MI'SH'YACHZOR SHELOSHAH SHABASOS

úåñ' ã"ä îùéçæåø áå â' ùáúåú

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehudah finds it necessary to repeat this ruling, although he already stated it in the second Perek.)

àò"â ãëáø àùîåòéðï øáé éäåãä áô"á (ãó ëâ:) ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah already taught this ruling in the second Perek (on Daf 23:) ...

àöèøéê, ãñ"ã äåàéì åìàå îåòã àìà ìùáúåú, ìà áòé çæøä ë"ë.

(b)

Answer #1: ... he needs to repeat it here, because we would otherwise have thought that, since it is only a Mu'ad for Shabbasos, it will not require such an extensive retraction.

åìô"ä ðéçà ãîôøù 'îåòã ìùáúåú' - ìôé ùàéï òåùä îìàëä.

(c)

Answer #2: Whereas according to Rashi, who explains 'Mu'ad le'Shabbasos' because it does not do work ...

ã÷î"ì ãàôé' ùáú îîìàëä áùùä éîé äçåì åìà ðâç, ìà äåé çæøä.

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... it now comes to teach us that even if it rested from work during the week, it is not considered a retraction.

4)

TOSFOS DH RAV Z'VID AMAR V'EINO MU'AD T'NAN

úåñ' ã"ä øá æáéã àîø åàéðå îåòã úðï

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the inference and its extension in light of the Sugya later in the Perek.)

äà ñúîà, äåé îåòã ìùàéï îéðå.

(a)

Inference: But S'tam, it would also be Mu'ad for other species.

åàôéìå îáäîä ìàãí ðîé ùîòé' ìéä ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó îà.) ãñúîà äåé îåòã ...

(b)

Extension: In fact, even from Beheimah to Adam we have also heard him say, later in the Perek (Daf 41a) that S'tam is Mu'ad.

âáé äà ãôøéê 'åëé îàçø ãîúí ÷èìéðï ìéä îåòã äéëé îùëçú ìä?' åîôøù øá æáéã - 'ëâåï ùäøâ â' áäîåú'.

1.

Source: When the Gemara asks 'Since we kill it when it is still a Tam, how does it become a Mu'ad? To which Rav Z'vid replies 'Where it killed three animals'.

åäåä îöé ìîéúðé áîúðé' 'îåòã ìáäîä åàéðå îåòã ìàãí', ìàùîåòéðï ãñúîà äåé îåòã.

(c)

Extension (cont.): In that case the Mishnah could have said 'Mu'ad li'Beheimaah ve'Eino Mu'ad le'Adam', to teach us that S'tam it is Mu'ad.

åîéäå ùîà çæø áå øá æáéã îääéà ãì÷îï, ëãôøéê òìä äúí ...

(d)

Retraction: It is possible however, that Rav Z'vid retracted from the statement later, following the Kashya the Gemara asks on him there ...

ùàí ìà úàîø ëï ÷ùé' ìéä ääéà ãøéù îëéìúéï (ãó á:).

1.

Proof: ... because otherwise, there will be a Kashya on him from (the Beraisa that the Gemara cites at) the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 2b) See Maharam.

5)

TOSFOS DH SHOR V'LO NAGACH

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø åìà ðâç

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Tana inserts this last stage.)

áúøà ãð÷è, ëãé ùàí éâç, ìàìúø îùìí ð"ù.

(a)

Explanation: The Tana inserts the last stage, so that, in the event that it gores again, the owner will be obligated to pay Nezek Shalem immediately.

6)

TOSFOS DH NA'ASEH MU'AD L'SIRUGIN LI'SHEVARIM

úåñ' ã"ä ðòùä îåòã ìñéøåâéï ìùååøéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains, why according to Rav Z'vid, the ox is not Mu'ad for all species.)

åà"ú, ìøá æáéã àôé' ìëì ãáø äåé îåòã?

(a)

Question: According to Rav Z'vid, why is it not Mu'ad for all species?

åé"ì, ëâåï ùøàä ùàø áäîåú åìà ðâçï.

(b)

Answer: Because it speaks where the ox saw other animals and did not gore them.

7)

TOSFOS DH NA'ASEH MU'AD L'SIRUGIN LA'KOL

úåñ' ã"ä ðòùä îåòã ìñéøåâéï ìëì

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the case.)

ò"ë áùìà øàä áéðúééí ëìåí ...

(a)

Explanation #1: It must be speaking where it did not see any other species in between.

ãàé øàä, ìà äåé îåòã [ìëì] ìñéøåâéï.

1.

Reason: ... because if it did, it would not be Mu'ad for all species at intervals.

åà"ú, ëéåï ùìà øàä àçøéí, ìùååøéí ìçåãéä äåé îåòã ìëì ìñéøåâéï ìøá æáéã?

(b)

Question: Seeing as it did not see any other species, even if it is Mu'ad for oxen alone, it would be Mu'ad for all species at intervals, according to Rav Z'vid?

åé"ì, ã÷ñáø øá æáéã ãøáåúà ÷î"ì, ãñ"ã áäðê îéðé ãçæà åìà ðâç ìà äåé îåòã...

(c)

Answer: Rav Z'vid holds that this case teaches us a Chidush, since we would otherwise have thought that it is not a Mu'ad regarding those species that it saw and did not gore ...

åìàå 'áñéøåâéï' úìéà îìúà.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and that 'at intervals' is not the determining factor.

à"ð, áùòä ùðâç â' îéðéí äììå äéå ìôðéå îéðéí äøáä åìà ðâç àìà àìå ...

(d)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, when it gored these three species, there were other species present, and it gored specifically these three ...

ãäùúà àí äéå ùìùúï ùååøéí, äééúé àåîø ëéåï ãëì ùòä îæåîï ìéâç äùååøéí åîðéç ùàø îéðéí, àéï îåòã ìéâç àìà ùååøéí ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... because had it been three oxen that it gored, we would have said that since it always attacks oxen, and leaves other species, it is a Mu'ad to gore oxen exclusively ...

àáì äùúà ãäåå â' îéðéí, äàçã îäí ðåâç åàéðå çåùù ìéâç àìà äàçã.

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... but now that it gored three different species, it (randomly) attacked the one that it did (each time) and did not bother to attack the others.

37b----------------------------------------37b

8)

TOSFOS DH SHOR SHOR V'SHOR CHAMOR V'GAMAL

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø ùåø åùåø çîåø åâîì

(Summary: Tosfos establishes the two She'eilah according to Rav Z'vid and explains the connection between them.)

åëâåï ùáéï ùååøéí øàùåðéí øàä áäîåú àçøåú åìà ðâç, åááòéà ùðééä áéï ùååøéí àçøåðéí.

(a)

Clarification: It speaks where the ox saw other animals among the first oxen, and in the second She'eilah, among the last oxen, and did not gore them.

åàúé ùôéø ëåìä ñåâéà ëøá æáéã.

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... in which case the entire Sugya goes according to Rav Z'vid (See Maharam).

åìà ëøá àìôñ ùôéøù ñåâéà ãùîòúéï ëøá ôôà.

(b)

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rav Alfas, who explains the Sugya according to Rav Papa.

åðøàä ìø"é ãäðé úøé áòéåú áàí úîöà ìåîø ãùåø áúø ùååøéí ùãéðï ìéä ...

(c)

Clarification: The Ri explains that the second She'eilah is learned 'Im Timtzi Lomar' - in that, if, in the first She'eilah, we go after the oxen ...

ãàéëà úøé èòîé ãñáøà ìîùãééä áúø ÷îàé åáúø ùååøéí ùäï îéðå ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): Seeing as there two reasons to do so - 1. To go after the first three, and 2. To go after the oxen, which are the same species (as the goring ox) ...

'çîåø åâîì ùåø ùåø åùåø îäå?' îé ùãéðï ìéä áúø ÷îàé àå áúø ùååøéí ùäï îéðå?

2.

Clarification (concl.): 'What will the Din then be in a case of 'Chamor, ve'Gamal Shor Shor ve'Shor?' whether the first ox goes after the first two animals, or after the oxen, which are the same species?

9)

TOSFOS DH YOM CHAMISHAH-ASAR B'CHODESH ZEH ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä éåí è"å áçãù æä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Chazakah of days and dates, and compares it with the Din of Veses [in connection with Nidah].)

ðøàä ãâ' ôòîéí áè"å áçãù ìë"ò äåé îåòã, åáðãä ðîé ÷åáòú åñúä.

(a)

Clarification: It would seem that if it gores on the fifteenth of three consecutive months it is a Mu'ad, and by Nidah too, it fixes a woman's Veses ...

àò"â ãìéëà àìà ùúé ôòîéí ñåó ì' éåí ...

(b)

Implied Question: ... even though there are only two lots of thirty days in between ...

ãìàå ñåó ì' éåí âøéí àìà è"å áçãù âøéí ...

(c)

Answer: ... because it is not the thirty-day period that causes the Chazakah but the fifteenth of the month ...

ëîå øéù éøçà åøéù éøçà åøéù éøçà ã÷áò åñúä áâ' øàéåú äììå ...

1.

Precedent #1: ... just as three sightings on three consecutive Roshei Chodashim fixes a woman's Veses ...

ëãîùîò áùéìäé áðåú ëåúéí (ðãä ã' ìè:).

(d)

Source: ... as is implied in 'B'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 39b).

åëîå ùáú ùáú åùáú, ãñâé áùìù ôòîéí, ãìàå ñåó æ' âøéí àìà éåí ùáú.

(e)

Precedent #2: And like where the ox gores on three consecutive Shabbasos, where three times will suffice, seeing as it is not the end of seven days that causes it, but the actual day of Shabbos.

åäéëà ãàéï ùí äéåí âåøí åìà ùí îðéï äçãù - ëâåï àí øàúä äéåí åìñåó òùøéí ìøàééúä æå øàúä åçæøä åøàúä ìñåó òùøéí, ìë"ò àéï äøàùåðä îï äîðéï, ãäà ñåó òùøéí âøéí.

(f)

Clarification (cont.): But there where it is neither the actual day nor the date that causes it - for example, where the woman sees today and again at the end of twenty days and again at the end of another twenty days, everyone agrees that the first sighting is not counted, since it is the end of twenty that causes it.

åëï îùîò áðãä áô' äàùä (ã' ñâ:) ãúðï 'äéúä ìîåãä ìøàåú ìéåí è"å åùéðúä ìéåí òùøéí, æä åæä àñåøéí; ùéðúä â"ô ìéåí òùøéí, äåúø éåí è"å åðàñø éåí ë', ùàéï äàùä ÷åáòú ... '.

(g)

Proof: And this is also implied in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Ishah (Nidah, Daf 63b), which states that if a woman who was used to seeing every fifteenth day changed to the twentieth day, both days are forbidden, but that if she changed three times to the twentieth day, then the fifteenth day becomes permitted, and the twentieth, forbidden, because a woman's Veses is only fixed after three times'.

àìîà áòé' â"ô ìéåí ë', åàéï äøàùåðä ùì è"å éåí îï äîðéï.

1.

Proof (cont.): So we see that she requires to change three times to the twentieth, and that the previous sighting on the fifteenth is not counted.

åàéï ðøàä ìçì÷ îùåí ãäúí ìîåãä ìøàåú.

(h)

Refuted distinction #1: Nor does it seem correct to attribute the ruling to the fact that she was used to seeing (because the earlier sighting belonged to the previous Veses).

åòåã, îã÷úðé 'ùàéï äàùä ÷åáòú ... ', îùîò ãôñé÷à ìéä äëé áëì äðùéí.

(i)

Proof: Moreover, since the Tana said there 'because a woman's Veses is only fixed ... ', it implies that this ruling applies to all women.

åìô"æ àí ðâç éåí à' åéåí á' ìà ðâç éåí â' ðâç åéåí ã' ìà ðâç éåí ä' ðâç åéåí å' ìà ðâç, àéï ðòùä îåòã ìë"ò òã ùéùìù áãìåâ, åàéï äøàùåðä îï äîðéï.

(j)

Extrapolated Halachah: According to this, if the ox gored on Sunday but not on Monday, on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, and on Thursday but not on Friday, it will not become a Mu'ad until it skips a third time (and gores on Shabbos), since the first goring is not counted.

åúéîä, ãâáé 'øàä ùåø åðâç åøàä ùåø åìà ðâç ... ', äåé øàùåï îï äîðéï?

(k)

Question: But in the case (on Amud Alef) where it saw an ox and gored, an ox and it didn't gore ... ', the first goring is counted?

åöøéê ìçì÷ áéï ñéøåâéí ùì éîéí ìñéøåâéí ùì ùååøéí.

(l)

Answer: We are therefore forced to draw a distinction between 'skipping' regarding days and 'skipping' regarding oxen.