CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH KEIVAN D'KANYA KEIH L'KAPARAH KEDIDEIH DAMYA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ã÷ðéà ìéä ìëôøä ëãéãéä ãîéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes the Gemara in Zevachim not according to our Sugya.)

åäà ãôøéê áôø÷ áúøà ãæáçéí (ãó ÷éã.) 'îå÷öä åðòáã àéðå ùìå äåà, åàéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå?' åîå÷é ìä á÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): When the Gemara in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114a) asks that Muktzah and Ne'evad do not belong to him, and a person cannot render something forbidden that is not his?', and answers by establishing it by Kodshim Kalim ...

äééðå ëøá äåðà ãìòéì, ãìäðé àîåøàé ãäëà îúå÷îà àó áçèàú, ãëãéãéä ãîéà.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): ... that is according to Rav Huna above, because, according to the current Amora'im, one could even establish it by a Chatas, which is considered his.

2)

TOSFOS DH TA SHEMA SHENAYIM OCHZIN B'SAKIN V'SHOCHTIN ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä úà ùîò á' àåçæéï áñëéï åùåçèéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Sugya - which implies that "Heichan'num 've'Ganzum' refers even to a Hedyot -, with the Sugya in Avodah-Zarah, which implies that it is only Asur to Gavohah.)

îùîò äëà, ãøá äåðà åòåìà ãìòéì (ãó î.) àñøé àó ìäãéåè, ãäê ã'ùðéí àåçæéï' åääéà ãø' éäåãä áï áúéøà åøáðï ãáñîåê àééøé àó ìäãéåè; åîùîò ãìãéãäå ðéçà.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): It seems here that Rav Huna and Ula earlier (on Daf 40a) forbid it even to a Hedyot, since the case here of 'Shenayim Ochzin' and that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira that will be discussed shortly, are talking about a Hedyot, and it is implied that according to them there is no Kashya.

åäùúà äà ãîééúé øàééä áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ò"æ ãó ðã:) ìòåìà î'ëìéí ùäæðéç äîìê àçæ' - ãàîø îø "äëððåí" - 'ùâðæåí åä÷ãéùå àçøéí úçúí', äåé àñåø àó ìäãéåè.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Consequently, the proof that the Gemara now brings from Perek Rebbi Yishmael (in Avodah-Zarah 54b) for Ula from vessels that King Achaz used to serve Avodah-Zarah, about which Mar said 'They prepared them and sanctified others in their place', means that they were forbidden even to a Hedyot.

åúéîä, ãäúí ìòéì áääåà ôéø÷à (ãó ðá:) 'áòé îéðéä ø' éåñé áï ùàåì îøáé - ëìéí ùðùúîùå áäï ááéú çåðéå, îäå ùéùúîùå áäï ááäî"÷? àìéáà ãî"ã òáåãú ëåëáéí äåà, ìà úéáòé ìê - ãäùúà ìäãéåè àñéøé ... '.

1.

Sugya in Avodah-Zarah (Part 1): In the Gemara there earlier in the Perek (Daf 52b) Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul asked Rebbi what the Din will be regarding Keilim that were used in Beis Chonyo. The She'eilah did not apply according to those who held that Beis Chonyo was an Avodah-Zarah, he explained, since now that it was Asur to a Hedyot ...

åîñé÷ ãàñåøéï. åãøéù ìéä î÷øà ã'äëððåí" - 'ùâðæåí'.

2.

Sugya in Avodah-Zarah (Part 2): The Gemara concludes that they were Asur, and it Darshens it from the Pasuk "Heichan'num" - 'she'Ganzum'.

åîä øàééä äéà, äúí àñéøé àó ìäãéåè, ëìéí ùäæðéç àçæ, åäðê ãáéú çåðéå ùøå ìäãéåè, ìî"ã ìàå ìòáåãú ëåëáéí äåà?

3.

Question: What is the proof from there, seeing as the Keilim that Achaz used to serve Avodah-Zarah were forbidden even to a Hedyot, whereas those of Beis Chonyo were permitted to a Hedyot, according to those who hold that it was not an Avodah-Zarah?

åé"ì, ã÷øà ã"ëì äëìéí" åãàé àééøé ìâáåä, åîééúé îéðéä øàéä ìòåìà, ãëéåï ãàñéøé àò"ô ùìà òùä áäï àçæ ùåí ùðåé àìà ùðùúîù áäï ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, à"ë, äéëà ãòáéã îòùä âîåø ùîúçéì ìùçåè äáäîä, àéú ìï ìîéîø ãàñåø àôéìå ìäãéåè.

4.

Answer: The Pasuk of "Kol ha'Keilim ... ("Heichan'num ... ") is certainly confined to Gavohah. And the Gemara's proof from there for Ula is that - since it was Asur even though Achaz merely used them for Avodah-Zarah, without effecting any change on them, there where one performed a proper act on them (such as where he began to Shecht the animal), we can assume that there, it is Asur even to a Hedyot as well.

3)

TOSFOS DH TA SHEMA HA'METAMEI V'HA'MEDAME V'HA'MENASECH ETC.

úåñôåú ã"ä ú"ù äîèîà åäîãîò åäîðñê ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Sugya with the Sugya in Gitin.)

ìî"ã áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðá:) 'îðñê îîù' ôøéê.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara asks according to the opinion in Gitin that 'Menasech' is meant literally.

åà"ú, åîàé ÷à îùðé 'ãàéú ìéä ùåúôåú áâåä' - äà àîø äúí 'ìî"ã ãîðñê îîù, ìà áòé ìîéîø 'îòøá', îùåí ãäééðå 'îãîò'.

(b)

Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara then answer that it speaks where he has a partnership in it, bearing in mind that the Gemara says there that according to those who learn Menasech literally, it could not have said 'Me'arev', since that would be the same as 'Medame'.

åëéåï ãàå÷îéä ãàéú ìéä ùåúôåú áâåä, åìà ðàñø çì÷ çáéøå àìà îùåí ùîòøá áùìå, åà"ë, äà àëúé äééðå îãîò?

(c)

Question (Part 2): Now, seeing as we just established it where he has a partnership in it, and his friend's portion does not become forbidden only because it is mixed together with his own, the Kashya remains, that this is 'Medame'?

åé"ì, ãîëì î÷åí ÷î"ì ãàó òì âá ãçééá îéúä, ìà àîøéðï '÷í ìéä áãøáä îéðéä', ëãàîøéðï äúí ...

(d)

Answer (Part 1): It nevertheless comes to teach us that even though he is Chayav Misah, we do not apply the principle 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih', as the Gemara explains there ...

åàé ìà úðà 'îãîò', äåä àîéðà ãáãáø îåòè ìà îéçééá.

(e)

Answer (Part 2): ... and had the Tana not added 'Medamei', we would have thought that for a small amount one is not Chayav.

4)

TOSFOS DH LAV KOL KEMINACH SHE'TE'ESOR YEINI L'ONSI.

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàå ëì ëîéðê ùúàñø ééðé ìàåðñé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Sugya with the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, with which Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira seems to clash.)

úéîä, ãîùîò äëà ãø' éäåãä áï áúéøà ùøé ìæáåðé ìëì òåáã ëåëáéí ùéøöä, îèòí ãàéï àãí àåñø ãáø ùàéðå ùìå ...

(a)

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, one is permitted to sell the wine to any Nochri that one chooses, seeing as one person cannot render forbidden what is not his ...

åáîñ' ò"æ ô' ø' éùîòàì (ãó ðè: åùí ã"ä àîø) îùîò ãìà ùøé ìæáåðé àìà ìääåà òåáã ëåëáéí ãðñëéä ...

(b)

Question (Part 2): .. whereas in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 59b - See there Tosfos DH 'Amar') it implies that he is only permitted to sell it to the Nochri who rendered it Nesech ...

ãîéðä îééúé øàéä à'äà ã÷àîø äúí 'äàé òåáã ëåëáéí ãðñëéä ìçîøéä ãéùøàì, àò"â ãàñåø áäðàä, ìîù÷ì ãîé îääåà òåáã ëåëáéí ãðñëéä ùøé - ãî÷ìà ÷ìééä'?

(c)

Question (Part 3): ... since the Gemara there, brings a proof from there in support of the case there where a Nochri poured wine belonging to a Yisrael, where it rules that, even though he is not permitted to derive benefit from it, he is permitted to take money from the Nochri who rendered it Yayin Nesech, because it is considered as if he had burned it?

åé"ì, ãäëé îééúé äúí ëéåï ãø' éäåãä áï áúéøà ùøé ìæáåðéä ìëì òåáã ëåëáéí ùéøöä, ìøáðï ðîé ãôìéâé òìéä, ùøé ìæáåðéä ìääåà òåáã ëåëáéí ãðñëéä.

(d)

Answer: The proof there is that, since Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira permits selling the wine to any Nochri that he pleases, the Rabbanan will at least permit selling it to the Nochri who rendered it Yayin Nesech.

5)

TOSFOS DH B'YISRAEL MUMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä áéùøàì îåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi, who maintains that the Gemara could have answered here that it speaks where he had a share in it, like it answered earlier.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãä"ä ãäåä îöé ìàå÷åîé ãàéú ìéä ùåúôåú áâåä, ëãàå÷éí ìòéì.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara might just as well have established it where he had a share in it, like it did earlier.

å÷ùä, ãà"ë, àîàé çæø åä÷ùä ÷åùéåú ùëáø úéøõ?

(b)

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara subsequently repeat the Kashyos that it already answered before?

àìà ðøàä, ãàó òì âá ãàéú ìéä ùåúôåú áâåä, àëúé àéëà ìîéîø 'ìöòåøéä ÷îéëåéï'.

(c)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that even if he has a share in it, one can still say that he does it in order to cause him pain (and not in order to worship it).

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHA NAMI B'YISRAEL MUMAR

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà ðîé áéùøàì îåîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains a Sugya in Gitin according to the current Amora'im.)

ìäðê àîåøàé äåä îöé ìîéîø áäðæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðá:) 'îðñê äééðå ùðâò áå'.

(a)

Clarification: According to these Amora'im, the Gemara could have said in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin 52b) that 'Menasech' means that he touched it.

7)

TOSFOS DH EIN SHOCHTIN L'TOCH HA'GUMA

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ùåçèéï ìúåê äâåîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries Rabeinu Tam, who restricts the prohibition to a pit that is clean.)

àåîø øáéðå úí, ãäééðå âåîà ð÷ééä, ãðøàä ëî÷áì ãí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí.

(a)

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that this refers to a clean pit, because it then appears as if he is receiving the blood on behalf of Avodas-Kochavim.

å÷ùä, ãàí ëï áìà òåùä ìå î÷åí çåõ ìâåîà, àéëà ú÷ðä ìð÷ø çöøå.

(b)

Question: In that case, without making a space outside the pit, there is a Takanah of cleaning the Chatzer.

åìôéëê èåá ìéæäø îìùçåè àôéìå ìúåê âåîà ùàéðä ð÷éä.

(c)

Conclusion: One should therefore take care not to Shecht even into a pit that is not clean.

8)

TOSFOS DH U'V'SHUK LO YA'ASEH KEIN

úåñôåú ã"ä åáùå÷ ìà éòùä ëï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the opinion of Rav regarding doing something in secret on Shabbos, both according to the Babli and the Yerushalmi.)

àò"â ãàîø øá (ùáú ãó ñã:) 'ëì î÷åí ùàñøå çëîéí îôðé îøàéú äòéï àôéìå áçãøé çãøéí àñåø' ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Rav says in Shabbos (on Daf 64a) that 'Wherever the Chachamim declared something Asur on account of Mar'is ha'Ayin it is forbidden even in a room within a room' ...

äééðå ëîå 'ùåèçï áçîä. àáì ìà ëðâã äòí', ùàí äéå øåàéí àåúå òåùä ëï áöéðòà äéä ùí çùã ëîå áùå÷.

(b)

Answer (Part 1): ... that is restricted to cases such as 'spreading out clothes to dry, but not in front of the people', where, if they saw him doing it in secret, they would suspect him, just as they would if he did it in the street ...

àáì ëàï, äøåàä ùòåùä ááéúå àåîø ìð÷ø çöøå äåà òåùä.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): ... which is not the case here, where if they saw him doing it in his house, they would say that he was doing it in order to clean his Chatzer.

åîéäå áéøåùìîé éù ãäê îùðä ôìéâ à'ãøá, îääéà.

1.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi however, learns from there that this Mishnah disagrees with Rav.

åðøàä, ùàéï äù"ñ ùìðå ñåáø ëï ...

2.

Bavli: It appears however, that the Bavli does not concur with the Yerushalmi in this point ...

îãìà ä÷ùä îîúðéúéï ìøá, ëîå ùä÷ùä îæåâ ùáöåàø, åîùðé 'úðàé äéà' áôø÷ áîä àùä (ùí ãó ñã:).

3.

Source: ... since it does not query Rav from the Mishnah, as it does in Perek Bameh Ishah (Shabbos 64a) from the case of 'the bell around the animal's neck', and answers (in 64b) that it is a Machlokes Tana'im.

åëì äðäå ãôøéê ìøá áô"÷ ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó éá.) 'îé ùðúôæøå ìå îòåúéå ìôðé òáåãú ëåëáéí', 'åéùá ìå ÷åõ áøâìå' - åîùðé ìäå, ÷àîø áéøåùìîé ãôìéâé à'ãøá.

4.

Yerushalmi: And with regard to all those cases from which it queries Rav in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (12a) (e.g. 'Someone whose money scattered in front of an idol', and 'If a splinter settled in somebody's foot' and answers, the Yerushalmi holds that they disagree with Rav.

åäà ãàîø áôø÷ àò"ô (ëúåáåú ãó ñ.) 'öéðåø ùòìå áå ÷ù÷ùéí áùáú, îîòëå áøâìå áöéðòà áùáú, åàéðå çåùù', áääåà ðîé îåãä øá, ãìà ùééê ùí çùã ...

(d)

Final Point: And in the case in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos 60a) regarding a pipe into which rubbish entered, where he is permitted to discreetly squash the rubbish with his foot on Shabbos without compunction, there too, Rav will concede that 'Chashad' does not apply ...

ãäà îãàåøééúà ùøé ìîòëå ìëúçìä áùáú.

(e)

Reason: ... seeing as min ha'Torah, it is permitted Lechatchilah to do so.

41b----------------------------------------41b

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'REBBI SHIMON MACHSHIR

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé ùîòåï îëùéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why according to Rebbi Shimon, Mar'is ha'Ayin does not apply in this case.)

ôé' ä÷åðè', ãìà çééù ìîøàéú äòéï.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he is not concerned about Mar'is ha'Ayin.

åøéá"à îôøù, ãìà ùééê ëìì ìø' ùîòåï îøàéú äòéï, ããåîä ë'î÷ãéù òì îðú ìùçåè áçåõ'.

(b)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): According to the Riva however, Mar'is ha'Ayin does not apply according to Rebbi Shimon, as it is similar to someone who declares Hekdesh with the intention of Shechting outside (the Azarah).

åø' ùîòåï ìèòîéä ãîôøù áô' äøé òìé òùøåï (îðçåú ãó ÷è.) 'äøé òìé òåìä òì îðú ùà÷øéáðä ááéú çåðéå, é÷øéáðä ìáéú äî÷ãù. ø"ù àåîø, àéï æä òåìä'.

(c)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And R. Shimon follows his own reasoning in Perek Harei Alai Isaron (Menachos 109a) where, in response to the Tana Kama's ruling - 'Harei Alai Olah al-M'nas she'Akrivenah be'Beis Chonyo, Yakrivenah be'Beis-ha'Mikdash', he rules 'Ein Zeh Olah!' ...

åèòîà 'ùìà äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéí' ...

(d)

Reason: ... because he did not designate it in the way that one normally designates ...

ëãúðï áô' äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ùí ãó ÷â.) 'äøé òìé îðçä ìäáéà îï äùòåøéï ... . ø' ùîòåï ôåèø, ùìà äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéí.

(e)

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (Ibid. 103a) 'Harei alai Minchah Lehavi min ha'Se'orin ... Rebbi Shimon Poter, she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvim (because this is not the way one donates)'.

åáäãéà úðà áúåñôúà à'äê ãäëà 'ø' ùîòåï îëùéø, ùàéï ëéåöà áæä îúðãá. àîø ø' ùîòåï - åîä àí àîø "äøé òìé òåìä ìùåçèä áòáø äéøãï", ùîà òåìä äéà?'

(f)

Proof: In fact, the Tosefta, explaining the current case, says explicitly that Rebbi Shimon declares it Kasher because cases of this nature cannot be donated. Rebbi Shimon said 'And if someone said "I am going to bring an Olah in order to Shecht it on the other side (the East Bank) of the Jordan River", would it be an Olah?'

10)

TOSFOS DH V'HA LO AMAR L'SHEM CHATASI

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ìà àîø ìùí çèàúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the statement more thoroughly.)

àí ìà àîø 'ìùí çèàú', åàôé' àí àîø 'äøé æå çèàúé', ìà àîø ëìåí - ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãðãøéí (ãó å.).

(a)

Clarification: As long as he did not state 'le'Shem Chatas!', he has said nothing - even if he says 'This is my Chatas!', as we learned in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 6a).

11)

TOSFOS DH EIMAR NADAR BETZIN'A

úåñôåú ã"ä àéîø ðãø áöéðòà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara was not likewise worried that he may have a secret Korban in his house when it established the case of Temurah earlier where he did not have a Korban in his house.)

åìòéì ãìà çééùéðï ùîà éù ìå æáç áúåê áéúå áöéðòà ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): Earlier, we did not suspect that he may have a secret Korban in his house ...

ãàéú ìéä ÷ìà ùøâéì ìäåãéò ùìà éáåàå ìéãé îòéìä.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): ... because there it is speaking where he is known to publicize whenever he has, in order to avoid transgressing Me'ilah.

12)

TOSFOS DH LO SHANU ELA SHE'EIN LO ISHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ùðå àìà ùàéï ìå àùä

(SUMMARY: In answer to Rashi's Kashya, Tosfos re-interprets 'Ein lo Ishah'.)

îä ùä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ, àé ùàéï ìå àùä, ìîä ìå ìîúðééä 'æä äëìì', ôùéèà, ìîàé ðçåù ìä?

(a)

Question: Rashi asks that if he does not have a wife, why do we need 'Zeh ha'Kelal' (to preclude an Olas Yoledes) - Is it not obvious that we have nothing to worry about?

éù ìåîø, 'àéï ìå àùä' äééðå ùàéï àðå éåãòéï àí éù ìå àùä àí ìàå; åëï 'àéï ìå æáç' ãìòéì.

(b)

Answer (Part 1): We can answer by explaining that 'Ein Lo Ishah' means (not that we know that he does not have a wife, but) that we do not know whether he has a wife or not. And the same applies to 'Ein lo Zevach' that we learned earlier ...

àáì áéãåò ãàéï ìå, ìà àéöèøéê.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): ... but there where we know for sure that he does not have a wife, it does not need to be precluded.