GITIN 60 (9 Elul) - Dedicated in memory of Esther Miryam bas Harav Chaim Zev and her husband Harav Refael Yisrael ben Harav Moshe (Snow), whose Yahrzeits are 9 Elul and 10 Elul respectively. Sponsored by their son and daughter in law, Moshe and Rivka Snow.

1) TOSFOS DH "Im Shachav"

תוס' ד"ה "אם שכב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what the Gemara is referring to when it says, "If you slept.")

אם שכב לא כתיב כלל אלא אם לא שכב כתיב

(a) Implied Question: The Torah never states, "If you slept," but rather only states, "If you did not sleep." (Note: How, then, can our Gemara say that the Pasuk, "If you slept" is on the tablet upon which is written the Parshah of Sotah?)

אלא דבתר הכי כתיב ואת כי שטית.

(b) Answer: Rather, the Gemara is referring to the Pasuk afterwards, "And you, that you went away (from your husband to someone else)."

2) TOSFOS DH "Torah"

תוס' ד"ה "תורה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the position that "the Torah was given sealed," and what Rebbi Levi's statement has to do with it.)

תימה דכתיב (שמות כד) ויקח ספר הברית ויקרא באזני העם ופרש"י בפי' חומש דהיינו מבראשית ועד כאן

(a) Question: This is difficult. The Pasuk states, "And he took the Sefer ha'Bris, and he read it in the ears of the people." Rashi explains in his commentary on Chumash that this is referring to Breishis until what was currently written in the Torah. (Note: This clearly shows that the Torah was given over in sections!)

ונראה לפרש דלא קאמר חתומה ניתנה שלא נכתבה עד לבסוף אלא שעל הסדר נכתבה דיש פרשיות שנאמרו תחילה לפני אותם הכתובים לפניהם ולא נכתבה עד שנאמר לו אותה שכתובה לפניה וכותב זאת אחריה

(b) Answer: It appears that "it was given sealed" does not mean it was not written until the end (when it was all written at once). Rather, it was written in order. There are some Parshiyos that were said before those that are written before them. These were not written before the Parshiyos that were written before them were recorded (even though they were stated first), and only then were the next Parshiyos recorded.

ועל זה מייתי מדרבי לוי שאותם לא נאמרו על הסדר

1. This is why the Gemara quotes from Rebbi Levi, as the Parshiyos he mentions were not said in order.

והיה יכול להוכיח זה מכמה מקראות דאין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה

(c) Implied Question: The Gemara also could have proved this from many Pesukim where it is clear that there is not necessarily chronological order in the Torah's order of Parshiyos. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara do so?)

אלא הואיל ומשכח דרבי לוי מייתי לה

(d) Answer: However, because there is a statement of Rebbi Levi that communicates this, it brought his statement.

ור"ת גריס א"ר לוי מילתא באפי נפשה.

(e) Opinion: Rabeinu Tam has the text, "Rebbi Levi says," indicating that Rebbi Levi is not being quoted in (direct) connection to our Gemara. (Note: This is in contrast with our Gemara that clearly connects Rebbi Levi's statement to our discussion.)

3) TOSFOS DH "Parshas Temai'im"

תוס' ד"ה "פרשת טמאים"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the definition of "the Parshah of the impure.")

פי' בקונטרס ויהי אנשים

(a) Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to the people who were impure (and wanted to bring a Korban Pesach, leading to the Parshah if Pesach Sheini).

וקשה לפירושו דאמר בפ"ק דפסחים (דף ו.) שואלים בהלכות פסח קודם הפסח ל' יום שהרי נביא עומד בפסח ראשון ומזהיר על פסח שני ולפ"ז איכא חדש וחצי כיון שנאמר בראש חדש ניסן

(b) Question#1: There is a difficulty with his opinion. The Gemara in Pesachim (6a) says that one asks about the laws of Pesach thirty days before Pesach. This is apparent from the fact that the prophet (Moshe Rabeinu) stood up by the first Pesach, and warned about the laws of Pesach Sheini (by saying this Parshah). Accordingly, the Gemara should have said that one should inquire one and a half months beforehand, as Moshe was saying this on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (as stated in our Gemara).

ועוד דלא יתכן לרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר נושאי ארונו של יוסף היו ולרבי יצחק דאמר למת מצוה נטמאו וחל שביעי שלהם בערב פסח

(c) Question#2: Additionally, this cannot be correct according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who says that the people referred to in this Parshah carried the coffin of Yosef. It also cannot be correct according to Rebbi Yitzchak who says that they became impure to a Mes Mitzvah, and their seventh days was on Erev Pesach. (Note: There is much discussion in the Acharonim regarding what exactly Tosfos is asking on Rashi, as this seems to be an argument based within the Gemara (in Sukah 25a-b) itself.)

ונראה דפרשת טמאים היינו פרשת וינזרו (ויקרא כב) דכתיב ביה טומאת שרץ ונבילה וכל הצריך לטומאת מקדש וקדשיו.

(d) Opinion#2: It appears that the Parshah discussed here is the Parshah of "va'Yinazru" (Vayikra 22:2) which states the impurity of Sheratzim, animals improperly slaughtered, and required knowledge regarding people who make the Mikdash and its Kodshim impure.

4) TOSFOS DH "u'Parshas Acharei Mos"

תוס' ד"ה "ופרשת אחרי מות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara is not a question on an opinion in the Bereishis Rabah.)

בבראשית רבה איכא פלוגתא גבי אחר הדברים האלה היה דבר ה' אל אברם (בראשית טו) דאיכא למ"ד אחר סמוך ואחרי מופלג ואיכא למ"ד איפכא וקשה מאחרי מות דבו ביום היה

(a) Question: The Bereishis Rabah (Parshah 44) quotes an argument regarding the definition of "Achar" -- "After" these things, Hash-m's word came to Avram" (Bereishis 15:1). One opinion says that the word "Achar" means immediately afterwards, while "Acharei" means a long time after. Another opinion states that the opposite is true. This first opinion is clearly difficult, as according to our Gemara it was said on the same day as the sons of Aharon died (using the word "Acharei Mos Shnei Bnei Aharon").

ושמא נאמר אחר כל הפרשיות לכך חשיב מופלג.

(b) Answer: Perhaps it was stated after all of these (seven) other Parshiyos (stated on this day). This is why a term meaning "after awhile" was used.


5) TOSFOS DH "Itmohi"

תוס' ד"ה "אתמוהי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites a Medrash to help explain the Gemara.)

במדרש (שמות רבה פ' תשא) אמרינן כמו זר נחשבו שעובדי כוכבים כתבו את התורה ואם היה נכתב הכל לישראל היו עובדי כוכבים הכל כותבין ולהכי קאמר רחמנא אכתוב לו רובי תורה והלא מה שכתבתי להם כמו זר נחשבו שהעתיקו זרים

(a) Explanation: The Medrash (Shemos Rabah in Parshas Ki Sisa, Parshah 47) explains the Pasuk, "Like a stranger they were considered" in the following manner. The Nochrim copied the Torah. If everything was written for Bnei Yisrael, the Nochrim would copy all of it. This is why the Torah says, "Will I write for him most of My Torah? What I did write for them, like a stranger they were considered" meaning that Nochrim copied what I did write.

ובקונטרס פירש בענין אחר.

1. Rashi explains the Gemara differently.

6) TOSFOS DH "Shipura"

תוס' ד"ה "שיפורא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what "Shipura" means.)

לפי מה שפי' בקונט' שתוקעין בע"ש קשה דבסוף פ' במה מדליקין (שבת דף לה:) משמע דחזן הכנסת היה מניחו בראש הגג

(a) Question#1: Rashi's opinion that they used to blow the Shofar on Erev Shabbos is difficult. In Shabbos (35b), the Gemara implies that the caretaker of the synagogue would put it on top of the roof. (Note: Our Gemara says they would put in the house of an important Rabbi.)

ועוד דרב יהודה היה בפומבדיתא ורבא במחוזא

(b) Question#2: Additionally, Rav Yehudah was in Pumbedisa and Rava in Mechuza. (Note: Why would the Shofar of one city be in a house of someone, no matter how great, who lived in a different city?)

אלא נראה כלשון אחר שפירש שופר שבו נותנין נדבה לתלמידים.

(c) Answer: Rather, it appears that the correct explanation is the second explanation quoted by Rashi. This explanation is that "shofar" refers to a (charity) box where people placed donations for the (Yeshiva) students.

7) TOSFOS DH "Ela"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara, and why there is no suspicion regarding the moving of the charity box.)

פירש ר"ת שלא יאמרו מפני החשד שחושדים אותו לגנוב פת של עירוב אין מניחים אותו שם אבל בשיפורא ליכא חשדא שיודעין שמניחים אצל ריש מתיבתא לחלק לתלמידים.

(a) Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that this was in order that people should not say that because they suspect him of stealing the bread of the Eiruv, the bread is not placed there. However, there was no suspicion when the charity box was moved, as it is known that it is put by the Rosh Yeshiva in order that he can distribute the monies contributed to the students.

8) TOSFOS DH "b'Meizal"

תוס' ד"ה "במיזל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this part of our Gemara.)

אפילו נהר קטן שמימיו פוסקין כל הרוצה לדלות ידלה כיון שמושך הנהר כפשטו.

(a) Explanation: Even if the river is a small river, and its waters eventually stop, anyone who wants may take water from it, as the river runs naturally (as opposed to when a dam is made).

9) TOSFOS DH "v'Hashta"

תוס' ד"ה "והשתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not decide the law based on the rule that the law follows Shmuel in money matters.)

לית ליה הא דאמר בפ' יש בכור (בכורות דף מט:) הלכתא כשמואל בדיני וכרב באיסורי

(a) Answer#1: (Note: Tosfos is bothered why the rule that the law is like Shmuel in monetary matters is not used in this case.) Rav Huna does not hold of this rule stated in Bechoros (49b) that the law follows Shmuel in monetary matters and Rav in matters of prohibition.

א"נ הכא מסתבר טעמא דרב אע"ג דדחקינן מתניתין אליביה.

(b) Answer#2: Alternatively, (though he does hold of this rule) Rav's reasoning is very compelling in this case, even though his explanation of the Mishnah is somewhat forced.

10) TOSFOS DH "k'Bei Trei"

תוס' ד"ה "כבי תרי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Simi's actions.)

והוא סבר כיון דאמר כל דאלים גבר יכול להערים עליהם

(a) Explanation: (Note: Tosfos is bothered by Rav Simi's actions. How could he have justified doing this?) He (Rav Simi) held that because the law is that whoever is stronger wins, he is allowed to trick them.

ולא דמי דמה נפשך מיצעי לא שתו ואעילאי ותתאי הוא דשייך כל דאלים גבר.

1. His application of this here was incorrect. In any event, the people by the middle of the stream clearly do not have first rights. The ruling that, "whoever is stronger wins," is regarding the people at the top and bottom of the stream.

11) TOSFOS DH "Lo Ta'aminhu"

תוס' ד"ה "לא טעמינהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Abaye's actions.)

להודיע שלא על פיו עשה

(a) Explanation: This was to show that Rav Simi did what he did without Abaye's consent.

ושמא מכרם דאין כאן גזל אלא מפני דרכי שלום בעלמא.

1. Perhaps he sold them, as there is no real theft here. The matter is merely one of maintaining the peace.

12) TOSFOS DH "Seliku"

תוס' ד"ה "סליקו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains who Abaye was talking to and what it was that he said.)

פי' ר"ח דלעילאי אמר שאין יכול למחות בהן משום דכל דאלים גבר

(a) Opinion#1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that Abaye told this to the people at the top, that they cannot protest because the law is that whoever is stronger wins.

וקצת משמע כן שהרי להן היה מדבר

1. There is a slight implication that this is true, as he was talking to them. (Note: Tosfos means that the natural give and take in the Gemara implies he was talking to them.)

ומ"מ נראה כפירוש הקונטרס דלבני חרמך היה מדבר שיסתמו את מסיבתם ולא דמי לדרב ושמואל כלל.

(b) Opinion#2: However, it still appears that Rashi is correct, and that Abaye was talking to the people of Chermeich. He was telling them to close their diversion. This case would (according to Rashi) not be like Rav and Shmuel's case at all.

13) TOSFOS DH "Metzudos"

תוס' ד"ה "מצודות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this law is different from a similar law in Bava Basra.)

ולא דמי למרחיקין מצודות הדג מן הדג דפרק לא יחפור (ב"ב דף כא:)

(a) Implied Question: This is unlike the law that one must distance his fishing nets from someone else's fishing area, as stated in Bava Basra (21b). (Note: How is our Mishna different from that law?)

דהתם אומנתו בכך ומן הדין הוא שירחיק משם דא"ל קא פסקת לחיותי אבל הכא דאין אומנתו בכך לא הוי גזל אלא מפני דרכי שלום.

(b) Answer: The Gemara there is talking about a case where the other person is a fisherman for a living. Another person therefore must distance himself from his fishing area, as he could otherwise tell them that they are ruining his livelihood. However, the Mishnah here is talking about a case where nobody involved does this for a living. It is therefore only stealing due to the need to maintain peace.