(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashis explanation.)

, ... , .

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains until market day; Provided he does not leave the Agunah among them for thirty days - the one that he purchased last, he should not allow thirty days, market day, to pass.

, () , ?

(b) Question #1: The Tosefta (Perek 8) has the text More than thirty days, in which case, he will be allowed to keep it after market day?

, , , ?

(c) Question #2: A little earlier, in connection with Yom-Tov, it refers to it as Achronah, whereas here it calls it Agunah?

, ?

(d) Question #3: The Tana does mention market day at all?

, , , .

(e) Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that the it is because the butcher tends to purchase many animals at the same time that he is permitted to keep them, provided he does keep even the Agunah, the one that is left on its own after the others have been Shechted, for longer than thirty days, even though it is the only one left.

, .

(f) Conclusion: However, the text in all the Sefarim reads Thirty days, and not More than thirty days.


(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashis explanation, that the Rabanan argue with Raban Gamliel.)

, ...

(a) Refuted Explanation: Tosfos does not agree with Rashi, who explains that the Rabanan argue with Raban Gamliel ...

, .

(b) Authentic Explanation #1: Since they asked Raban Gamliel whether one is permitted to keep the animals before Yom-Tov, to which he replied in the affirmative.

, ...

(c) Authentic Explanation #1 (cont.): And he mentioned tying it Laav Davka (not because it was necessary, but) because it was customary to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

( :) , , ...

1. Source (in the Mishnah): As the Gemaraa says in Eilu Treifos (Chulin, Daf 54b) A rope that extends from a bed, up to five Tefachim is Tamei ...


2. Source (cont.): And Rashi there, explains that the rope is fit to use to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

- .

3. Source (in the Torah): As the Torah writes Isru Chag baAvosim ad Karnos haMizbeach - because they used to tie their Korbanos to the bedposts up to the time that they brought it to the corners of the Mizbeach (Targum Yonasan there).

, , .

(d) Authentic Explanation #2: He says tied it to teach us that even if they are tied, it is forbidden to rear them, only to keep them (temporarily).

() ...

(e) Support: And the Tosefta too, implies that even before Yom-Tov one is only permitted to keep them in the house ...

, , . .

1. Support (cont.): As the Tana says explicitly But one may keep them thirty days before Yom-Tov, not that they go out and graze in the market, but that one ties them to the bed-post. They asked Raban Gamliel ... .


(Summary: Tosfos explains the Sugya and a Mishnah in Ohalos accordingly.)

. , .

(a) Clarification: This means that its calves are thin. And it is called Chartza because, due to the thinness of its calves, the spaces between its calves are discernable, seeing as the calves are so thin and give the appearance of being tall.

, , ...

(b) Mishnah in Ohalos: That is why the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ohalos states in connection with Chuldas haSenaim, quoting Rebbi Yossi says that According to Beis Shamai, it is Metamei a Kezayis beMasa, and kAdashah beMaga ...

, , , , .

1. Mishnah in Ohalos: Because, since its legs are tall and thin, Beis Shamai has a Safek that perhaps it is not the weasel mentioned in the Pasuk, in which case it is subject to Tumas Neveilah, or perhaps it is, and it has the Din of a Sheretz.

? -, , , . .

(c) Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara concludes uMai Shartza? deMitsai Shakeih (What is a Sheretz? One whose calves are short) - it is referring to the weasel in the Pasuk, of which it does not have a Safek, since its legs are short and it crawls along the ground. This is how Rabeinu Tam learns.


(Summary: Tosfos presents two interpretations of the statement.)

- , ? ...

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi interpets this as a rhetoric question - Is it the way of Chovah to bury her children, that instead of occupying herself with thei upbringing, she busies herself rearing sheep?


1. Explanation #1: And it served as An erroneous stsatement that is made before the ruler.

( : ) ...

(b) Sugya in Nazir: It is not possible however, to explain in this way, the Sugya in Perek Shnei Nezirim (in Nazir, Daf 57b & 58a) ...

? , ; ! . .

1. Sugya in Nazir (cont.): Where Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rav Huna According to you, who cut off their hair? And in response to Rav Hunas reply Chovah, he commented Chovah Tikberinhu liBenah! There is no way of explaining that other than as a curse.


(c) Explanation #2: Alternatively, one can explain it (both Sugyos) to mean Is she not afraid that she will be punished by having to bury her children?


(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashis explanation.)

, , .

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the members of his Yeshivah settled there, and most of the fields there belonged to Jews.

( . ) , , .

1. Precedent: And in similar vein, he explained in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6a, Tosfos there DH miChi) - We made ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin, from the time that Rav came to Bavel and we became experts in liShemah, on account of the increase of Yeshivos.

, , , ? ...

(b) Question: If so, asks Rabeinu Tam, how can the Gemara there query this from the Mishnah Acco is like Eretz Yisrael for Gitin - Acco, but not Bavel? ...


1. Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that the Mishnayos not written before Rav arrived in Bavel?

- , , .

(c) Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that When Rav came to Bavel - and taught them that already from the time of Yechonyah, when the Cheresh and the Masger (the Talmidei-Chachamim) were exiled to Bavel (See Gitin, Daf 88a), Gitin-wise it had the Din of Eretz Yisrael, where they were experts in liShemah.

- .

1. Explanation #2 (cont.): And likewise here regarding Beheimah Dakah, since there are a majority of Yisrael there.

( .).

2. Explanation #2 (concl.): And so it is possible to explain the Sugya at the beginning of baKol Mearvin (Eruvin, Daf 28a).


(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashis explanation.)

, , .

(a) Explnation #1: Rashi explains Pidyon haBen, and so does the Aruch.

, , .

(b) Question: Even though Unklus translates Pidyon (Shmos 13:13) as Purkan, the term salvation is not applicable to it.


(c) Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that a son was born there (See Hagahos veTziyunim & ) ...

- ( ), .

1. Reason: Because a baby is saved and rescued from its mothers womb - as the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah (66) veHimlitah Zachar, it uses the expression Yeshuah ...


2. Conclusion: And they were accustomed to prepare a Seudah on that occasion.



(Summary: Tosfos points out the chronological significance of the statement.)


(a) Clarification: He did not institute it now on account of this incident ...


1. Source: Since the Gemara queries it from a Beraisa (which preceded it) ...


(b) Clarification (cont.): Only he Darshened that it had been instituted arlier.


(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with Resh Lakish in Sanhedrin.)

( : ) , , , , ...

(a) Implied Question: When Resh Lakish, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15b & 16a), says, in connection with a lion, a leopard, a bear, a wolf and a Bardlas, that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that Whoever kills them first, has merited a good deed, that applies exclusively to where they killed, but otherwise, not ...

, ; .

(b) Answer #1: That speaks where they are tied to a chain, which was how they tended to be reared, whereas here it speaks about a cat thast is not tied.

, , ...

(c) Answer #2: Alternatively, from the above listed animals people tend to be wary, in which case, we are not worried that they will causse harm, which is not the case by a cat ...

, .

1. Reason: Because people do not know whether it is the son of a black cat or of a white one, since one is not acquainted with thei ancestry.


(Summary: Tosfos explains the ruling and elaborates.)

, .

(a) Clarification: Meaning that a person who finds it dead is not obligated to return its skin.

, , ?

(b) Question: Now that Rav has taught us that it is not subject to theft, why does he need to add that one is permitted to kill it?

, .

(c) Answer: The question is irrelevant, seeing as he first mentioned than one is permitted to kill it.


(Summary: Tosfos explains the word Masriin and elaborates.)

, ? ( . )...

(a) Clarification: This cannot be referring to blowing the Shofar, because Since when does one blow the Shofat on Shabbos?, as the Gemara asks at the end of the first Perek of Taanis (Daf 14a & 14b) ...

, .

1. Clarification (cont.): It must therefore be referring to crying out with Aneinu, and he holds like the opinion there that Aneinu is called Hasraah.

, , ?

(b) Question: In that case, what does the Gemara ask from the case of Other forms of punishment, about which the Tana says Lo Hayu Masriin al haChikuch (itching/boils) Ela Tzoakin?


(c) Possible Answer: Perhaps what he means is that they did not blow the Shofar; they only cried out verbally, with Aneinu?

, ...

1. Refuted Question: Nor can one answer that even though both expressions refer to verbally crying out, Hasraah is one thing, and Tzeakah, another.

, .

2. Refutation: Since the Gemara there implies that according to the opinion that holds Aneinu is called Hasraah, they are one and the same.

, , , .

(d) Answer: What the Gemara means is that - Since the Tana says that on Shabbos one cries out at least with Aneinu, it stands to reason that for itching during the week, one should even blow the Shofar, seeing as it is such an important issue that it merits crying out on Shabbos.


(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether to insert Guvai or not.)


(a) Amendment of Text: We do have the text Guvai ...

( .) .

1. Reason: Seeing as the Mishnah in Seider Taaniyos haEilu (Taanis, Daf 19a) states Masriin al haArbeh, veal heChasil veal haGuvai.

, .

(b) Refutation #1: There it is referring to Masriin verbally.

, , , ...

(c) Refutation #2: It is possible to insert it, because there it is speaking about a plague of Guvai that damages fields, similar to Arbeh and Chasil that the Tana mentions there ...

, , .

1. Reinstating Text (cont.): Whereas the Guvai here refers to one that damages people, similar to hornets and a plague of snakes. So the Ri explained.


(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with a seemingly contradictory statement by Rav Acha miDifti himself in Bava Basra.)

( :)...

(a) Question: When Rav Acha miDifti himself stated in the first Perek of Bava Basra (on Daf 12b) regarding an incident that occurred with him Lo biMeheirah Mativin lo ...


(b) Answer: He said it at the time when he believed that they would reinstate him as the Rosh Yeshivah ...

, .

1. Answer (cont.): But eventually, when they did not, he said leOlam Ein Mativin lo!


(Summary: Tosfos discusses the Dinim of Amirah leNochri on Shabbos.)

, , ...

(a) Clarification #1: Specifically in connection with this Mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael, but in order to fulfill another Mitzvah, Amirah leNochri is not permitted ...

( .) ...

(b) Clarification #1 (cont.): And even for the Mitzvah of Milah the Gemara in Perek Hadar (Eruvin, Daf 68b) implies that one may not ask a Nochri to perform a an Isur dOraysa ...

- , , ...

1. Source: In the case of a baby whose hot water spilled, where the Gemara rules to the mother whether she does not need hot water; and that, if she does, one could heat up water for the baby on account of his mother ...

... , .

2. Source (cont.): Implying that, in the event that the mother would not need it, it would not be permitted even via a Nochri.


3. Support: In fact, some commentaries have the text Let us heat up water via a Nochri on account of his mother.

, , , .

(c) Clarification #2: It appears that this episode occurred before the Milah, and they needed to heat the water in order to be able to perform the Milah, and this they did not permit even via a Nochri, as the Gemara does here, only on account of the mother.


(d) Implied Question: And in the earlier case there, in connection with another baby, where the Gemara said to ask a Nochri to bring hot water from the house ...

, .

(e) Answer: That was a matter of an Isur deRabanan, to have bring it by way of a Chatzer which did not have an Eiruv.

, ...

(f) Opinion #1: And even an Isur deRabanan, says the Ri, one may not permit in the case of any other Isur via a Nochri ...


1. Example: Such as bringing a book through a Karmlis in order to learn in it ...

, .

2. Reason: Because it is only Milah, which itself overrides Shabbos, that an Isur deRabanan is permitted via a Nochri.


(g) Opinion #2: The Bhag however, implies that for the purpose of Milah, even an Isur dOraysa is permitted via a Nochri ...

, , .

1. Opinion #2 (cont.): When he explains that it was permitted for the Nochri to bring the hot water even via the Rshus haRabim, for the sake of the Milah, just as the Gemara here permits it for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.


(h) Implied Question: According to him, the second episode, where the Gemara permitted a Nochri to heat the water only on account of the mother

, .

(i) Answer #1: Occurred after three days after the Milah, where the baby had already fully recovered.

, , , , ( . ).

(j) Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the Sefarim that do not have the text Nochri, we can answer that it is speaking via a Yisrael, within seven days, where it is permitted to desecrate the Shabbos on behalf of the mother, should she need it, as the Gemara says in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 129a & 129b).

, , , ( :).

1. Refutation: This is not correct however, since, via a Yisrael, it would not have been allowed to add water on behalf of the baby, as the Gemara rules in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 15b).

, ...

(k) Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the Bhag, it transpires that it is preferable to permit an Isur dOraysa via a Nochri than an Isur deRabanan via a Yisrael ...


1. Proof #1: As the Gemara concludes there on that case - And we do not draw a distinction between a Shvus with an act, and one without an act.

( :) , .

2. Proof #2: And the Gemara also says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer deMilah (Shabbos, Daf 130b) Just as one may not bring (a knife) through the Rshus haRabim, so too, may one not bring it by way of roofs, courtyards and enclosures.

, , , ( .) ...

3. Implication: And it would appear from the Bhag that on Yom Tov Sheni, even on Rosh Hashanah, it is permitted for a Yisrael to attend to all the needs of Milah, even to chop wood in order to forge metal, since even though a deceased person who may not be buried by a Nochri [on Shabbos], as is clear from the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (20a), nevertheless ... (continued on next Daf)