1)

TOSFOS DH CHAYVEI MALKIYOS MINAYIN ASYA RASHA RASHA (continued from previous Amud)

úåñ' ã"ä çééáé îì÷éåú îðéï àúéà øùò øùò

(Summary: Tosfos continues discussing the Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha" "Rasha".)

ìàå îùåí ãìéú ìéä ìøáà "øùò" "øùò," àìà îùåí ùàéï öøéê,ãîâåôéä ã÷øà ùîòéðï ãàéï îùìùéí áîëåú.

(a)

Answer: ... that is not because Rava doesn't hold of "Rasha" "Rasha", but because, seeing as we can learn the issue of not dividing the Malkos from the Pasuk itself, it is not needed.

åáàìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ìä. åùí) âáé 'çééáé îì÷éåú ùåââéï åãáø àçø, ' ãàîø ø"ì "áôéøåù øéáúä úåøä çééáé îì÷éåú ëçééáé îéúåú." äéëï øéáúä úåøä? àáéé àîø "øùò" "øùò;" øáà àîø "îëä" "îëä" ...

(b)

Question #1: And in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 35a & 35b) , where Resh Lakish, in connection with 'Chayvei Malkiyos plus something else', said that ' "The Torah explicitly equates Chayvei Malkiyos with Chayvei Misos". Where? Abaye says "Rasha" "Rasha", Rava, "Makeh" "Makeh" ...

äúí åãàé ìà ãøéù øáà "øùò" "øùò?"

(c)

Question #1 (cont.): ... there it is clear that Rava does not Darshen "Rasha" "Rasha"?

åëï ø' éåçðï ôìéâ à'ø"ì åîçééá çééáé îì÷éåú ùåââéï áúùìåîéï,

1.

Question #1: Rebbi Yochanan too argues with Reish Lakish and obligates Chayvei Malkos Shogegin to pay,

åëï áääåà ôéø÷à (ãó ìæ.) àîø âáé "ìà éäéä àñåï, òðåù éòðù;" åäà îäëà ðô÷à, îäúí ðô÷à "ëãé øùòúå," 'îùåí øùòä àçú àúä îçééáå ... ?' ...

2.

Question #2: And similarly, in the same Perek (Daf 37a) where he says, in connection with "Lo Yih'yeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh". Do we learn this from here? Surely we learn it from the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso" - 'One can declare him Chayav on account of one evil deed, but on account of two' ?

åîñé÷ 'çãà áîéúä åîîåï åçãà áîì÷åú åîîåï' - ìà ãøéù "øùò" "øùò" ...

3.

Question #2 (cont.): And the Gemara concludes 'One (we need) for Misah and Mamon, the other, for Malkos and Mamon' - he does not Darshen "Rasha" "Rasha". ...

åäééðå èòîà ãøáà åø' éåçðï åääéà ñåâéà )ã(ñáøé ãìà ãøùé' "øùò" "øùò" àìà ìòðéï ãáøéí ùäï áâåó äîì÷åú...

(d)

Answer: The reason of Rava and Rebbi Yochanan and that Sugya is because they hold that we only Darshen "Rasha" "Rasha" with regard to issues that are connected to the actual Malkos itself ...

ã÷øà ã"øùò" áâåó äîì÷åú ëúéá- "åäéä àí áï äëåú äøùò," àáì ìôèåø îîîåï ùäåà áäãé îéúä åîì÷åú ùàéï áâåó äîì÷åú ìà ãøùéðï...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... seeing as the Pasuk of "Rasha" is written in connection with the actual Malkos - "Vehayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha", but not with regard to Mamon together with Misah and Malkos which are not connected to the actual Malkos.

àáì î"îëä" ") îëä(" éìéó ìä øáà ùôéø, ãáúùìåîéï ëúéá "îëä áäîä éùìîðä."

(e)

Answer (cont.): But from "Makeh" ("Makeh") Rava does learn it, since the Pasuk "Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah" is written in connection with payment ...

åàáéé àéú ìéä àôé' äúí â"ù ã"øùò" "øùò" .

1.

Answer (concl.): Though Abaye holds of "Rasha" "Rasha" even there.

åñåâéà ãäúí âáé "øùòúå" àìéáà ãøáà àúéà...

(f)

Conclusion: And the Sugya there in connection with "Rish'aso" goes according to Rava ...

åàáéé äåä îå÷é ëøáé îàéø áîéúä åîì÷åú, ãîì÷åú åîîåï ìà öøéê ÷øà ãàúéà "øùò" "øùò".

(g)

Conclusion: ... and Abaye would establish it like Rebbi Meir by Misah and Malkos; because a Pasuk for Malkos and Mamon is not necessary since we learn it from "Rasha" "Rasha".

2)

TOSFOS DH VE'CHEIN HAYAH REBBI YEHUDAH POTRO MI'KOL DINIM SHE'BA'TORAH

úåñ' ã"ä åëï äéä øáé éäåãä ôåèøå îëì ãéðéí ùáúåøä

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why Rebbi Yehudah then sees fit to exempt him from Boshes via "Einecha" "Einecha".)

úéîä, à"ë, îàé àéøéà ãôèø ø' éäåãä ááåùú ìòéì, åìîä ìé â"ù ã"òéðéê" "òéðéê ? "

(a)

Question: If so, why does Rebbi Yehudah need to exempt him from Boshes earlier, and why does he need the Gezeirah Shavah of "Einecha" "Einecha"?

åðøàä ìø"é, ùìáñåó çæø áå ø' éäåãä îîä ùäéä ôåèøå îáåùú ìáã, ëùîöà ãøùä ìôåèøå îîéúä åâìåú.

(b)

Answer #1: The Ri explains that Rebbi Yehudah ultimately retracted from exempting a blind person from Boshes alone, once he discovered the D'rashah to exempt him from Misah and Galus.

à"ð, àé ìàå ãâìé â"ù ã"òéðéê" ìôèåø ñåîà, äåä ñáøà ìîãøù âáé âìåú ëø' îàéø.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, if not for the Gezeirah Shavah of "Einecha" "Einecha" that exempts him (from Boshes), it would be logical to Darshen the Pasuk by Galus like Rebbi Meir.

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'CHEIN HAYAH REBBI YEHUDAH POTRO MI'KOL HA'MITZVOS HA'AMUROS BA'TORAH

úåñ' ã"ä åëï äéä ø' éäåãä ôåèøå îëì äîöåú )äàîåøåú( ùáúåøä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Yehudah here with Rebbi Yehudah in Megilah and explains the difference between a blind man and a woman and a blind man and a Katan in this regard.)

úéîä, äà ãúðï áôø÷ ä÷åøà àú äîâéìä (îâéìä ãó ëã. åùí) øáé éäåãä àåîø, 'ëì ùìà øàä îàåøåú îéîéå, ìà éôøåñ òì ùîò... '

(a)

Question: In the Mishnah in 'ha'Korei es ha'Megilah' (Megilah, Daf 24a [See Tosfos there, DH 'Mi']) Rebbi Yehudah says that whoever has never seen the light in his life cannot be 'Poreis al Sh'ma' ...

àôé' øàä åðñîà ðîé àîø äëà ãôèåø îëì äîöåú, åäéàê éôøåñ òì ùîò ìäåöéà àçøéí?

1.

Question (cont.): But does he not say here that he is Patur from all Mitzvos even if he once saw and became blind, so how can he render others Yotzei their obligation?

åáéøåùìîé ãîå÷é 'ùìà øàä îàåøåú îéîéå' áéåùá ááéú àôì [àå] ùðåìã áîòøä åàéðå ñåîà, à"ù...

(b)

Answer: There is no problem according to the Yerushalmi, which establishes 'Someone who has never seen the light in his life' by a person who is sitting in a dark house or who was born in a cave - but who is not blind.

àáì áâîøà ãéãï îùîò ãîééøé áñåîà îîù, ãîôøù èòîà ãøáé éäåãä ãàîø 'àéï ôåøñ' ,îùåí ãàéï ðäðä îï äîàåøåú ...

(c)

Question (cont.): Only our Gemara (in Megilah, Daf 24b) it seems, establishes it literally by a blind person, seeing as it gives Rebbi Yehudah's reason (that he cannot be Poreis al Sh'ma) as the fact that he derives no benefit from the luminaries ...

åøáðï [ñáøé] àéú ìéä äðàä, ëø' éåñé...

1.

The Rabanan: And as for the Rabanan, who maintain that he does, this is because they hold like Rebbi Yossi ...

ùøàä ñåîà åàáå÷ä áéãå, àîø ìéä 'áðé, àáå÷ä æå ìîä'? àîø ìéä 'ëì æîï ùàáå÷ä æå áéãé, áðé àãí øåàéï àåúé åîöéìéï àåúé îï äôçúéí

2.

The Reason: ... who once asked a blind man whom he found holding a torch why he needed a torch, to which he replied that it was so that as long as he was holding it, people would see him and come and save him from falling into a pit ...

... 'åäàé èòîà ìà ùééê àìà áñåîà îîù ?'

(d)

Question (concl.): ... and this reason will only pertain to a person who is actually blind?

åðøàä ãàó ò"â ãôèø ø' éäåãä ñåîà îëì äîöåú, î"î îãøáðï çééá ...

(e)

Answer: It seems that although Rebbi Yehudah exempts a blind man from all the Mitzvos, he nevertheless obligates him mi'de'Rabanan ...

ãàò"â ãàùä îéôèøà áîöåú òùä ùäæîï âøîà, åìà îçééáéðï ìä àôéìå îãøáðï...

(f)

Implied Question: ... because even though a woman, who is Patur from Mitzvos Asei that are time-related, is not obligated even mi'de'Rabanan ...

îùåí ùéù îöåú äøáä ãîçééáú áäå, àáì ñåîà àé ôèøú ìéä îëì äîöåú àôé' îãøáðï, à"ë ä"ì ëîå ðëøé ùàéï ðåäâ áúåøú éùøàì ëìì...

(g)

Answer: That is because there are many Mitzvos which they are still Chayav. A blind man on the other hand, if he would exempt from all Mitzvos even mi'de'Rabanan, he would end up like a Nochri who does not live according to Toras Yisrael at all ...

åìëê àåúå ùìà øàä îàåøåú îéîéå, àôéìå îãøáðï ìà éôøåñ òì ùîò, ëéåï ãìéú ìéä äðàä...

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, although someone who has never seen light at all cannot be Poreis al Sh'ma even mi'de'Rabanan, since he derives no benefit ...

àáì àí øàä åðñúîà, çééá îãøáðï åîåöéà àçøéí éãé çåáúï ãàçøéí ðîé ìà îçééáé àìà îãøáðï...

2.

Answer (concl.): ... one who was once able to see but who became blind, is Chayav mi'de'Rabanan, and can therefore also be Motzi others, whose obligation is also only mi'de'Rabanan ...

ã÷"ù ãøáðï äéà, ëãàîø á'îé ùîúå' (áøëåú ãó ëà.).

3.

Source: ... since K'ri'as Sh'ma is mi'de'Rabanan, as the Gemara states in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf 21a).

åìà ãîé çéåá ãñåîà ìçéåáà ã÷èï ùäâéò ìçéðåê... ùàéðå àìà ìçðëå, ãàò"â ãçééá îãøáðï, àéï ôåøñ òì ùîò ìäåöéà àçøéí éãé çåáúï.

(h)

A Suma & a Katan: Nor is his Chiyuv comparable to that of a Katan, who has attained the age of Chinuch ... which is only in order to educate him, which is why, even though he is Chayav mi'de'Rabanan, cannot be Poreis al Sh'ma in order to render others Yotzei their obligation (See Mesores ha'Shas).

4)

TOSFOS DH BE'EVED CANA'ANI SHE'LO PATUR MI'KULAM

úåñ' ã"ä áòáã ëðòðé ùìå ôèåø îëåìí

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Gitin.)

åà"ú, åäà áøôåàúå çééá?

(a)

Question: But is he not Chayav to cure him? ...

ëã÷àîø áô"÷ ãâéèéï (ãó éá: åùí) âáé '÷åèò éã òáãå ùì çáéøå, ðåúï ùáúå åøôåàúå ìøáå... '

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 12 [See Tosfos DH 'Shevacho']) in connection with someone who severs the hand of his friend's Eved - 'He pays his Sheves and his Refu'ah to his master' ...

åôøéê 'øôåàúå ãéãéä äéà ãáòé àéúñåéé áéä? 'åîùðé 'ìà öøéëà ãàîãåäå ìä' éåîé åòáãå ñîà çøéôà åàéúñé áúìúà éåîé.

2.

Source (cont.): ... and in reply to the question that the Refu'ah belongs to the Eved in order to attain a cure, the Gemara answers that it speaks where they assessed him for five days, and he made a sharp ointment that cured him in three.

åé"ì, ãä"ð 'ôèåø îëåìí' äééðå îï äéúøåï ãàîãåäå áä' åàéúñé áâ'.

(b)

Answer #1: Here too, 'Patur mi'Kulam' refers to the excess where they assessed him for five days, and he cured him in three.

åàí úàîø, åúôùåè îîúðé' ãéëåì äøá ìåîø ìòáã 'òùä òîé åàéðé æðê' îãôèåø îùáú?

(c)

Question: Why can we not prove from the Mishnah that 'A master can say to his Eved 'Work for me but I will not feed you!' - from the fact that he is Patur from Sheves?

åé"ì, ãäëà îééøé áæï àú äòáã.

(d)

Answer: It speaks here where he feeds the Eved.

åîéäå ÷ùä, îàé ÷î"ì øáé éåçðï ùðåúï øôåàúå ìøáå, ãäééðå äéúøåï ãàúñé áâ', îúðé' äéà ã'ôèåø îëåìí' ?

(e)

Question: What is Rebbi Yochanan coming to teach us when he says that he gives the Refu'ah to his master, which (as we just explained) is the excess after he cured him in three days - that is precisely what the Mishnah says 'Patur mi'Kulam'?

ò"ë ðøàä ùéù ìçì÷ áéï àçøéí çåáìéï áå áéï ìäøá òöîå çåáì áå...

(f)

Answer #2: It therefore seems that we need to differentiate between others who wound the Eved and the master himself ...

ùëáø æëä áëì.

(g)

Reason: ... who has already acquired everything (See Mesores ha'Shas).

5)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN DE'AKNI LEIH RACHMANA SH'VACH NE'URIM LA'AV

úåñ' ã"ä ëéåï ãà÷ðé ìéä øçîðà ùáç ðòåøéí ìàá

(Summary: Tosfos discusses the source that Rashi presents.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãëúéá "áðòåøéä áéú àáéä" ' ,ëì ùáç ðòåøéí ìàáéä' .

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi cites the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah", 'Kol Sh'vach Ne'urim le'Avihah'.

åá'ùðéí àåçæéï' (á"î ãó éá. åùí) âáé 'îöéàú áðå åáúå ä÷èðéí' ðîé ôé' ãáúå îöéàúä ìàáéä îùåí ã'ùáç ðòåøéí ìàáéä. '

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And in 'Shenayim Ochzin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 12a & 12b) too, in connection with 'The findings of one's small son and daughter', he explains that the findings of a daughter belong to her father due to 'Sh'vach Ne'urim le'Avihah'.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãáøéù ôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó â: åùí) åáàìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó î:) àîø ã'äåà áäôøú ðãøéí äåà ãëúéá' åìà éìôéðï îäúí ùàø ãáøéí?

(b)

Question: At the beginning of the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 3b) and in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 40b) the Gemara states that that ("bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah") refers to Hafaras Nedarim, and that we do not learn anything else from there?

åðøàä ãáëì ãåëúé ãð÷éè 'ùáç ðòåøéí ,'ìñéîðà áòìîà ð÷èéä, åìà îùåí ãîôé÷ î"ðòåøéä ."

(c)

Answer: It therefore seems that wherever the Gemara mentions 'Sh'vach Ne'urim', it does so merely as a 'Siman', but not because we learn it from "Ne'urehah".

åáùîòúéï ðîé ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áñåó ãáøéå ãëñó ÷ãåùéï ùìå, ãàé áòé îñø ìä ìîðååì åîåëä ùçéï...

(d)

Explanation #2: In our Sugya too, at the end of his commentary, Rashi explains that the money of the Kidushin belong to him (the father) since if he wants, he can hand her over to someone who is ugly or to a leper ...

åîöéàúä ðîé ìàá îùåí àéáä, ëãîôøù âîøà áôø÷ ðòøä ùðúôúúä (ùí ãó îå: åùí) ãçééùéðï ùîà îúåê ùðàä ùìà úúï ìå îöéàä, éîñøðä ìîðååì åîåëä ùçéï.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that her findings belong to him because of 'Eivah' (discord), as the Gemara explains in Perek Na'arah she'Nispatsah (Ibid, Daf 46b & 47a), because we suspect that perhaps, as a result of the hatred that not giving him her findings fosters, he will hand her over to an ugly person or to a leper.

åîáòéà ìéä ìøáé àìòæø áçáìä ...

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And Rebbi Elazar asks what the Din will be concerning Chavalah ...

ãàò"â ãàéï ùééê áä àéáä, ãìà ÷ôéã áîéãé ãàéú ìäå öòøà áâåôééäå, ëãàîø ì÷îï...

(e)

Implied Question: Because even though 'Eivah' is not applicable, since he (the father) is not particular about something that causes them (daughters) pain, as the Gemara will say shortly ...

î"î øàåé äåà ìäéåú ùì àá îùåí ãàôçúä îëñôä.

(f)

Answer: ... it is nevertheless befitting (for the Chavalah) to go to the father, seeing as it detracts from her value.

87b----------------------------------------87b

6)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LEIH LO ZICHSAH TORAH LA'AV ELA SH'VACH NE'URIM BI'LEVAD

úåñ' ã"ä à"ì ìà æéëúä úåøä ìàá àìà ùáç ðòåøéí áìáã

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Machlokes and reconciles Rav and Rebbi Yochanan with a Beraisa in Kesuvos.)

ìñéîðà áòìîà ð÷è äàé ìéùðà ëãôé'...

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara uses this expression merely as a Siman, as Tosfos explained on Amud Alef ...

åàôé' ôöòä áôðéä ãàôçúä îëñôä, ÷ñáø øá ãìéú ìéä ìàá îéãé; åëï ø"ì ì÷îï.

1.

Clarification (cont.): And even if he wounded her in the face, and detracted from her value, Rav holds that her father does not receive anything, and so does Resh Lakish later (in the Sugya).

åø"é ôìéâ åñ"ì ãàí ôöòä áôðéä, çáìúä ùì àá.

2.

Clarification (concl.): But Rebbi Yochanan disagrees, and holds that if he wounded her in the face, the Chavalah goes to the father.

åà"ú, åäéëé ôìéâé øá åø"ì àø' éåçðï ,åäà áøéù ðòøä [ùðúôúúä] (ëúåáåú ã' îâ: åùí) îùîò ááøééúà ãçáìä ãôöòä áôðéä äåéà ìàá?

(b)

Question: How can Rav and Resh Lakish argue with Rebbi Yochanan, when, at the beginning of Na'arah she'Nispatsah (Kesuvos, Daf 43b [See Tosfos DH 'she'Patz'ah']) the Beraisa implies that the Chavalah of wounding a girl's face belongs to the father?

åé"ì, ãäúí îééøé áôçéúú ëñó ùòã éîé ðòøåú, ùúöà îøùåú àá -ùäéúä ðôçúä ãáø îåòè àí äéä øåöä ìîåëøä; àåúå ãáø îåòè ë"ò îåãå ãìàá äåéà ãäééðå ùáç ðòåøéí âîåøéí ...

(c)

Answer #1: It speaks there about the girl's devaluation up to the time that she becomes a Na'arah, when she leaves her father's jurisdiction. This constitutes a small drop in price should he want to sell her; that small amount, it is unanimously agreed, goes to the father, as that is genuine 'Sh'vach Ne'urim' ...

åäëà ðçì÷å áëì äôçéúä ùäéà ðôçúú ëì éîéä áôöéòä æå, àó ìàçø ùëìå éîé äðòåøéí...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... whereas here they are arguing over a full devaluation, where the devaluation is permanent, and lasts even beyond the period of Na'arus ...

ãñ"ì ìøá åìø"ì ããéãä äåé, åø' éåçðï ñáø ãäåàéì åàéøò ôçéúä æå áðòøåúä, úäà ëåìä ìàá.

2.

Answer #1 (concl.): ... that is where Rav and Resh Lakish hold that it belongs to her, and Rebbi Yochanan, that it all goes to her father.

à"ð, äëà ôìéâé áîä ùäéà ðôçúú ì÷ãåùéï, ãñ"ì ìøá åìø"ì ãìà æëé ìéä àìà ÷ãåùéï îîù; åäúí áäôñã îòùä éãéä ãìà úîöà ìä ÷åðéí.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, they are arguing here where she is devalued with regard to Kidushin, and Rav and Resh Lakish maintain that the father only acquires the actual Kidushin; whereas there it is speaking about the loss of her work, as a result of which nobody will want to purchase her.

7)

TOSFOS DH KA'AN BI'SEMUCHIN AL SHULCHANO

úåñ' ã"ä ëàï áñîåëéï òì ùìçðå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies this Sugya according to the two opinions in Bava Metzi'a, with regard to the definition of a Katan and a Gadol.)

àåø"é, ìî"ã áôø÷ ÷îà ãá"î (ã' éá: åùí) âáé îöéàú áðå åáúå ä÷èðéí ùäåà ìàá- 'ìà âãåì âãåì îîù åìà ÷èï ÷èï îîù, àìà âãåì åñîåê òì ùìçï àáéå æäå ÷èï, å÷èï ùàéï ñîåê òì ùìçï àáéå æäå âãåì... '

(a)

Opinion #1: The Ri explains that, according to the opinion in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 12b & 13a) in connection with the findings of a small son and daughter which go to the father - neither Gadol nor Katan are meant literally, but a Gadol who eats at his father's table is considered a Katan, and a Katn who does not is considered a Gadol ...

àéï çéìå÷ áéï çáìä ùäàá çåáì áå ìîöéàä...

1.

Opinion #1 (cont.): ... there is no difference between a father who wounds his son and the son's findings ...

àáì çáìä ùàçøéí çåáìéï áäï äåé ãéãäå, åàôéìå áñîåëéí, ëãîôøù ì÷îï...

2.

Opinion #1 (concl.): ... whereas there where others wound them, the Chavalah belongs to them, even where they are eating at their father's table, as will be explained later ...

ãëéåï ãàéú ìäå öòøà ãâåôééäå åìà çñø, ìà ÷ôéã.

3.

Reason: ... because, since they feel pain and he does not lose anything, he will not object.

àáì ìùîåàì ãàîø äúí '÷èï ÷èï îîù', äåé îöéàú ÷èï ìàáéå àôé' àéï ñîåê òì ùåìçðå, ëãîôøù èòîà äúí...

(b)

Opinion #2: According to Shmuel however, who says there that 'Katan' means literally what it says, the findings of a Katan belong to his father even where he does not eat at his father's table, as the Gemara explains there (Daf 12a) ...

ùáùòä ùîåöàä, îøéöä àöì àáéå.

1.

Reason: ... because when he finds something, he instinctively takes it straight to his father ...

åâãåì àôé' ñîåê òì ùìçðå, îöéàúå ìòöîå, ãëéåï ãìà çñø, ìà ÷ôéã, åâí àéï îøéöä àöìå.

(c)

Opinion #2 (cont.): ... and a Gadol may keep what he finds, even if he eats at his father's table, because a. since the father does not lose anything, he does not object, and moreover b. the son does not take it straight to his father ...

àáì äëà ùäàá çåáì, àí äåà ñîåê àôé' âãåì äåé ìàá, ãëéåï ãçñø, ÷ôéã.

1.

Opinion #2 (cont.): ... whereas here, where it is the father who wounded him, if he eats at his father's table, it goes to the father, even if he is a Gadol, because, since he (the father) will lose, he objects ...

åàí àéï ñîåê àôé' ÷èï äåé ìòöîå, ãëéåï ãàéú ìéä öòøà ãâåôà, àéï îøéöä ìàáéå...

2.

Opinion #2 (cont.): And if he does not eat at his father's table, it goes to him, even if he is a Katan, because, since he suffers pain, he will not take it straight to his father ...

åáçáìå áäï àçøéí àôé' ñîåëéí å÷èðéí äåé ãéãäå, ëéåï ãìà çñø åâí àéï îøéöéï.

3.

Opinion #2 (concl.): But if others wound him, even if he is a Katan who eats at his father's table, it goes to him, since a. he (the father) does not lose anything and b. he does not take it straight to him.

8)

TOSFOS DH DI'CHESIV KI TOV LO IMACH

úåñ' ã"ä ãëúéá ëé èåá ìå òîê

(Summary: Tosfos discusses two possible versions of the Pasuk cited by the Gemara.)

äøø"à áäø"é äéä âåøñ "ëùëéø ëúåùá éäéä òîê" (åé÷øà ëä)...

(a)

Alternative Text: ha'Rav R. Avraham ben ha'Rav Yehudah had the text "ke'Sachir ke'Toshav yih'yeh Imach" (Vayikra, 25) ...

ãîäàé ÷øà ãøéù ìéä áñôøé.

1.

Reason: ... since it is from this Pasuk that the Sifri Darshens it.

åëï ðøàä, ãääåà ÷øà áöååé ëúéá...

(b)

Proof: And so it would seem, seeing as that Pasuk is written in the format of a command ...

àáì "ëé èåá ìå òîê" àéðå àìà ñéôåø ãáøéí áòìîà, ëãëúéá "åäéä ëé éàîø äòáã ìà àöà îòîê, ëé àäáê åàú áéúê, ëé èåá ìå òîê" .

1.

Proof (cont.): ... whereas "ki Tov lo Imach" (in Devarim, 15) is merely in the format of relating speech, as the Torah writes "Vehayah ki Yomar ha'Eved Lo Eitzei me'imach, ki Aheivcha ve'es Beisecha, ki Tov lo Imach".

åø"é àåîø ãàôéìå âøñé "ëé èåá ìå òîê" ðéçà...

(c)

Reinstating Original Text: But the Ri explains that the Gemara is in order even if we have the text "ki Tov lo Imach" ...

ãîã÷àîø "ëé èåá ìå òîê" , ù"î ùëê öøéê ìòùåú.

1.

Reason: ... because, since he says "ki Tov lo Imach", it is a proof that this is how it ought to be.

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'HA METZI'AH DE'ME'ALAM KA'ASI VE'KAPID

úåñ' ã"ä åäà îöéàä ãîòìîà ÷àúé å÷ôéã

(Summary: Tosfos discusses whether this Kashya goes according to Shmuel - cited in the previous Dibur Ha'maschil - or not.)

äàé ôéøëà ìà äåé àìà ìî"ã 'ìà âãåì âãåì îîù' ...

(a)

Explanation #1: This Pircha is confined to the opinion that 'Gadol is not meant literally' ...

àáì ìùîåàì àéëà èòîà èåáà âáé îöéàä -ãîøéöä àöì àáéå, ãâáé çáìä ìà ùééê äàé èòîà.

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... but according to Shmuel, there is good reason by Metzi'ah - 'because he takes it straight to his father, and this reason is not applicable by Chavalah.

à"ð àôé' ìùîåàì áòé àîàé ìà àîø áçáìä ùîøéöä àöì àáéå?

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, even on Shmuel the Gemara asks why it does not say that he takes it straight to his father? ...

åîùðé 'ëéåï ãàéú ìéä öòøà ãâåôà ìà ÷ôéã àá, å÷èï ðîé ìà éøéöðä àöìå.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and it answers 'Because, since he has pain, neither does the father object, nor does the Katan take it to his father.

10)

TOSFOS DH V'KA'TANI VE'LO OD ELA ACHERIM SHE'CHAVLU BAH CHAYAVIN LITEIN LE'AVIHAH

úåñ' ã"ä å÷úðé åìà òåã àìà àçøéí ùçáìå áä çééáéï ìéúï ìàáéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not establish the first Beraisa by Sheves and the second one by Nezek and Tza'ar, and elaborates.)

åà"ú, îàé ÷åùéà? äà àå÷îà ÷îééúà áùáú, åáúøééúà ã÷úðé ááðåúéå ùì àçøéí ÷èðéí 'éòùä ìäí ñâåìä' ,ãéìîà îééøé áùàø ãáøéí ëâåï ðæ÷ åöòø?

(a)

Question: What is the problem? We established the first Beraisa with regard to Sheves, and perhaps the second Beraisa, which says, in connection with the small daughters of others 'Ye'aseh lahem Segulah', is speaking about other things, such as Nezek and Tza'ar?

åé"ì, ãîñúîà äåé ãåîéà ãæëøéí, ã'òùä ìäí ñâåìä'ãéãäå îééøé àôé' áùáú, ùàéï îòùä éãéäí ìàá.

(b)

Answer #1: Presumably, the case will be equivalent to that of the sons, by whom 'Ye'aseh lahem Segulah applies even to Sheves, seeing as the work that they produce does not go to their father.

åòåã ðåëì ìôøù, ãäà ã÷úðé 'ááðéå åááðåúéå ôèåø' äééðå ãå÷à áùáú...

(c)

Answer #2: Furthermore, one can say that, when the Tana says 'be'Banav u'bi'Venosav Patur' speaks exclusively with regard to Sheves ...

åñáøà äåà, ãìéú ìï ìîôèøéä îùåí ãñîåëéí òì ùåìçðå àìà îùáú åìà îùàø ãáøéí...

1.

Reason: And it is logical to say that one can only exempt him (the father) because they eat at his table by Sheves, but not by the other Chiyuvim ...

ãáëì î÷åí îòùä éãéä ìàá úçú îæåðåú...

2.

Reason (cont.): ... because we always find that the produce goes to the father in lieu of sustenance ...

ãâáé àùä åòáã òáøé åëðòðé åáúå îæëéø áëì î÷åí 'òùä òîé åàéðé æðê' .

3.

Source: ... since by a woman, an Eved Ivri, an Eved Cana'ani and a daughter it always mentions a case of 'Asei imi ve'Eini Zancha!'

åìô"æ, à"ù ãìà îöé ìàå÷îà áúøééúà áùàø ãáøéí çåõ îùáú, ãáùàø ãáøéí àôé' áðéå åáðåúéå ùìå, çééá.

(d)

Answer #2 (concl.): According to this, it becomes clear as to why we cannot establish the second Beraisa by the other Chiyuvim besides Sheves, since by the other Chiyuvim, he is Chayav to pay even if it is his own sons and daughters.

åëï îùîò, ãîèòí ñîåëéí òì ùåìçðå àéï ìôåèøå àìà îùáú, ãôøéê ìòéì 'àé áñîåëéí âãåìéí, éúï ìäí îéã ... ' ,ìàáéäï áòé ìîéúá... '

1.

Support: And so it is implied - that the reason of 'Semuchim' will only exempt the father from Sheves, since it asked earlier 'If it is speaking about grown-up Semuchim, 'He gives them immediately? It is to the father that he ought to give it?' ...

îùîò ãîùåí ãàå÷îà áñîåëéí, ôøéê ãìàáåäåï áòé ìîéúá. åîðéï ìå æä? àé îùåí ãîãîä ìéä ìîöéàä, äà ìùîåàì àéï îöéàú âãåì ìàá?

2.

Support (cont.): ... implying that, because the Gemara established it by Semuchim, it asks that he ought to give it to the father. Why is that? If it is because it is compared to Metzi'ah, Shmuel holds that the Metzi'ah of a Gadol does not go to the father? ...

àáì àé îééøé áùáú, ðéçà- ãñáøà äåà ëéåï ùäåà æï àåúï ãùáú ùìäí éäéä ìàá, ëãôøéùéú.

3.

Support (cont.): ... whereas if it is speaking about Sheves, the question is justified - because of the S'vara that since he feeds them, their Sheves belongs to him, as Tosfos just explained.

åñáåø äî÷ùä ãàôé' ìà éäéå îòùä âãåìéí ìàá àò"ô ùäåà æï àåúï, î"î äéëà ãàúé îòìîà ëùáú, ñáøà äåà ùéäéä ìàá.

(e)

Clarification: And the Maksheh thought that even if the produce of the Gedolim does not go to the father (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) even though he feeds them, still, there where it comes from an outside source, such as Sheves, it is logical to say that it does.

åäà ãôøéê 'åäà îöéàä ... ?' -ãîùîò ãàé äå"à ãùáú ìàá, äåä ðéçà, åìà äåä ÷ùä ìéä îîöéàä à'ðæ÷ åöòø åøéôåé åáùú ãìà äåé ìàá...

(f)

Question: And when the Gemara asks 've'Ha Metzi'ah ... ?' - implying that if the Sheves would go to the father, it would be justified, and there would not be a Kashya from Metzi'ah as to why Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy and Boshes do not go to the father ...

îùåí ãîöéàä ãîéà èôé ìîòùä éãéí...

(g)

Answer: ... that is because Metzi'ah is more similar to Ma'aseh Yadayim ...

ëãàîø áøéù îöéàú äàùä (ëúåáåú ãó ñå. åùí) 'îöéàúä ëäòãôä ùò"é äãç÷ ãîé' ...

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states at the beginning of Metzi'as ha'Ishah (Kesuvos, Daf 66a & 66b) 'Her findings are similar to the extras that she produces with exertion' ...

àê îöé ìîéîø ãäà ã÷àîø 'àé áñîåëéí', äééðå àìéáà ãî"ã ìàå âãåì âãåì îîù, åîãîé ìîöéàä.

(h)

Refutation of Support: One can however, explain that when the Gemara asks 'I bi'Semuchim', it is according to the opinion that 'Gadol' is not meant literally, which is comparable to Metzi'ah.

11)

TOSFOS DH HACHA DE'LA'AV INASH DE'KAPID ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä äëà ãìàå àéðéù ã÷ôéã ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why, in this case, the Sheves ought to go to the father and why it doesn't.)

åà"ú, åëéåï ãîï äãéï ùáú ìàá, ëã÷àîø ãáàéðéù ÷ôãðà çééáéï ìéúï ùáú ìàá àôéìå ëùàéðí ñîåëéí, ìôçåú ìäòãôä...

(a)

Question: Since min ha'Din, the Sheves goes to the father, as the Gemara says - that by a man who is particular, they are Chayav to give Sheves to the father even where they are not Semuchim, at least as far as far as the excess is concerned ...

åîï äúåøä äéà ùì àá...

1.

Question (cont.): ... and what's more, it belongs to the father min ha'Torah ...

ëããøùéðï áøéù ÷ãåùéï (ã' â:) åáñåó àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ã' î:) åáðòøä ùðúôúúä (ùí ã' îå:) "ëé éîëåø àéù àú áúå ìàîä" 'îä àîä îòùä éãéä ìøáä, àó áú îòùä éãéä ìàáéä... "

2.

Source: ... as the Gemara Darshens at the beginning of Kidushin (Daf 3b) at the end of Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 40b) and in 'Na'arah sh'Nispatsah' (Ibid, Daf 46b) from "Ki Yimkor Ish es Bito le'Amah" - that 'Just as the Ma'aseh Yadayim of a maidservant goes to her master, so too, does that of a daughter go to her father' ...

à"ë, îä øàå çëîéí ãáâáøà ãìà ÷ôãï àîøå ááú ÷èðä ùì àçøéí, éòùä ìä ñâåìä àôéìå áùáú?

(b)

Question (concl.): ... if so, what did the Chachamim see to say that by a father who is not partcular, with regard to somebody else's daughter, 'Ye'aseh lah Segulah' even by Sheves?

åùîà àîãå çëîéí ãòúå ùì àá, åéåãòéí ùîåçì ìäí îùåí öòøà ãâåôééäå áîéãé ãìà çñø áéä åàúå ìäå îòìîà.

(c)

Answer: Perhaps the Chachamim assessed the mind of the father, and they concluded that he is Mochel his children with regard to something that a. they suffered pain, b. he does not lose anything and c. it comes from an outside source source.