תוס' ד"ה 'היינו דקאמר להו ועוד'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explains how, in the Tana's initial explanation of Rebbi, the Torah's use of the words "min ha'Eitz" [rather than 'me'Atzo'] forces us to say that Rebbi holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', and then cites a similar explanation in the Gemara in Sanhedrin).

פירוש, משמע דמעיקרא ה"א טעמא משום 'אם למסורת', ובתר הכי קאמר 'ועוד'; כלומר, אע"ג דס"ל 'יש אם למקרא', מ"מ הכא איכא למשמע מגזירה שוהץ


Clarification: Initially, the Tana assumed that Rebbi holds 'Yesh Eim la'Mesores', which is why he added 've'Od', to teach us that Rebbi maintains his view even if he holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'.

ותימה, דמעיקרא נמי לא תלי טעמא במסורת אלא משום דלא כתיב "מעצו"?


Question: But that's not correct! Rebbi's initial reason was not because of 'Yesh Eim la'Mesores', but because the Pasuk writes "min ha'Eitz (and not me'Atzo')?

ואמר ה"ר יוסף בכור שור, דהיא היא! וה"ק, וכי נאמר "ונשל הברזל מעצו"? דאי כתיב כן, אז הוי מיושב לומר 'יש אם למקרא' לקרות "ונשל" כדקרי, וכדאמרי רבנן והלא לא נאמר אלא "מן העץ", וא"כ אין לשון המקרא דקרינן "ונשל" מיושב על זה; אלא ודאי "מן העץ" מוכיח ד'יש אם למסורת', שהוא 'ונישל' כמו והשיל, וזה הלשון מיושב על "מן העץ" 'מן העץ המתבקע' קאמר. והשתא ניחא הא דקאמר 'ועוד'.


Answer: Rav Yosef B'chor Shor explains that the two are really one and the same. Because what Rebbi really meant was that the Pasuk does not write "ve'Nashal Barzel me'Atzo", because if it had, it would have been appropriate to learn 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra', and to read the word "ve'Nashal" (like the Rabbanan do). But now that the Torah writes "min ha'Eitz", we can no longer read "ve'Nashal" as it stands, since the two would then clash. Clearly then, "min ha'Eitz" indicates that Rebbi must hold 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', and "ve'Nashal" must be translated as 've'Nishal' (or 've'Hishil'). Consequently, "min ha'Eitz" refers to the wood that is being chopped. In any event, 've'Od' fits in perfectly.

וכן פירש בסנהדרין גבי "יראה" "יראה", דמשמע שפיר מן המסורת, דהיינו יראה משום דפשטיה דקרא משמע, דכתיב בתריה "את פני האדון ... " א"כ משמע "יראה זכורך פני האדון" והיינו לפי המסורת; אבל לפי המקרא דקרינן "יראה" הל"ל 'לפני האדון'.


A Precedent: We have a similar format in Sanhedrin, where the Torah writes in Re'ei (in connection with the Mitzvah of Aliyas Regel) "Yera'eh Zechurcha es P'nei Hash-m". There too, we go after the Mesores, to translate it as "one shall see the Face of Hash-m" (as if it had written 'Yir'eh'), because if it was meant to be translated as "one shall be seen" (according to the Mikra), the Torah ought to have then written 'Lifnei ha'Adon Hashem'.



תוס' ד"ה 'מהו דתימא ככח כחו דמי'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the current case and that of Eitz ha'Misbake'a according to Rebbi).

ולא דמי לעץ המתבקע דהתם נגע במה שבידו בשעת התזת העץ ;אבל הכא שכבר יצא מידו בשעת התזת תמרים, דמי שפיר לכח כחו אימא לא ליחייב קמ"ל.


Clarification: Our case (where the clod of earth that the Mazik threw hit a cluster of dates, which fell on a person and killed him) is not comparable to 'Eitz ha'Misbake'a. That is because, whereas the chip of wood actually touches the ax that he is wielding at the time when it flies from the tree, in our case, where the clod of earth had already left his hand when it struck the dates, it resembles 'Ko'ach Kocho', and he ought to be Patur.



תוס' ד"ה 'לא צריכא אלא ... '.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we can now establish the Mishnah where he is deliberately throwing the stones directly from his property on to the trash-heap).

פירוש, דמהשתא לא צריך לאוקומא בסותר, דהוא הדין בזורק ממש


Clarification: According to this, it is no longer necessary to establish the Mishnah where he is demolishing his wall, but where he is deliberately throwing the stones directly from his property on to the trash-heap.



תוס' ד"ה 'באשפה העשויה ...'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes the Mishnah where the Mazik was actually throwing his stones on to the trash-heap during the day; Then he goes on to explain why it must be speaking during the day, about a trash-heap that is used by night for relieving oneself, and not during the night about one that is never used for that purpose).

והשתא מיירי ביום ובזורק לאשפה, ולא בסותר כותלו.


Clarification: The Gemara now speaks by day and where one tends to throw stones into the trash-heap (and not to where the owner is demolishing his wall).

וא"ת, ולינקוט באינה עשויה ליפנות כלל וגם בלילה איכא דמקרי ויתיב, וכדקאמר השתא?


Question: ... In that case, why can the Mishnah not be speaking at night, by a trash-heap which is not generally used for relieving oneself?

וי"ל, דא"כ אנוס הוא, דלית ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה הא דמקרי ויתיב כיון שאינה עשויה ליפנות כלל; אבל השתא דעשויה ליפנות בלילה, אית ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה דגם ביום דמקרי ויתיב.


Answer: Because then he would be an Oneis, since he could not be expected to assume that maybe somebody was using it. Whereas now that it is used during the night, it ought to have occurred to him that somebody may be using it by day for the same purpose.



תוס' ד"ה 'אף ע"ג דגמיר, מצוה קא עביד ... '.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first draws a distinction between a Shali'ach Beis-Din, which is similar to a Talmid and a son, inasmuch as there is an indispensable Mitzvah to give the sinner lashes, and a Succah, where the Mitzvah of chopping wood is dispensable. They then refute the suggestion that the former too, is dispensable, in that the 'sinner' had the option of not sinning).

וא"ת, מ"מ קשה משליח ב"ד; דכיון דאילו לקה כבר, לאו מצוה קא עביד ... '


Question: The Kashya remains however, from the case of Shali'ach Beis-Din, where the sinner has already received his punishment, and to give him more lashes does not constitute a Mitzvah?

וי"ל, דמ"מ איכא מצוה מתחילה מה שאין כן בחטיבת עצים דסוכה, דאם מצאן חטובות לא היה שם חטיבת מצוה מעולם, שהרי לא נחטבו לכך.


Answer: Nevertheless, the case of chopping wood for a Succah cannot be compared to that of a Shali'ach Beis-Din, seeing as the latter was originally a Mitzvah, whereas the former, where there is no Mitzvah at all to chop wood (seeing if one had wood to begin with, it is dispensible).

וליכא למימר נמי כיון דאילו לא חטא, לאו מצוה היא ... ?


Implied Question: Why can we not by the same token, say that seeing as if he had not sinned, it would not be necessary to give him lashes, the Mitzvah of Malkos too, is dispensible?

דההיא לאו שליח ב"ד מיקרי, ולא דמי לרבו ואביו, דלעולם שמו עליו, זה על בנו וזה על תלמידו.


Answer: The fact is that, had he not sinned, then the man giving the lashes would not be a Shali'ach Beis-Din, and can therefore not be compared to a Rebbe and a father, whose respective titles exist, whether the Talmid and the son sins or not.


TOSFOS DH ' "BE'LO EIVAH", P'RAT LE'SONEI' (This Tosfos belongs to Daf 7b).

תוס' ד"ה ' "בלא איבה", פרט לשונא'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos offers a possible reason as to why we need the Pasuk in Bamidbar, when the Torah specifically says in Devarim "ve'Hu Lo Sonei lo").

תימה, אמאי איצטריך האי קרא? תיפוק ליה דכתיב במשנה תורה "והוא לא שונא לו", וצ"ע?


Question: Why do we need this Pasuk, bearing in mind that we already have the Pasuk "ve'Hu Lo Sonei lo ... "? This needs to be looked into!

ושמא י"ל, דבמשנה תורה נחזרת ונשנית בשביל דבר שנתחדש מ"יער"; והרבה פרשיות יש בענין זה במשנה תורה.


Answer: Perhaps we can answer that (based on the principle that in Seifer Devarim, the Torah does not mind repeating a Halachah, as long as we can learn something new from it), the Torah repeats it because of something new that we learn from "Ya'ar"; Indeed, the Torah repeats a number of Parshiyos in this connection there (see Maharsha).

אבל לא קשה מ"ולא אויב לו" דבאלה מסעי


Implied Question: One cannot however, ask from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Oyev lo" written in Mas'ei.

דההוא איצטריך למימר אפילו לא אויב לו [לעדים ולדיינים] כדאמרי' בסנהדרין (דף כט.) כך נראה למשי"ח.


Answer: ... because we need that Pasuk to teach us that witnesses and judges who hate the accused, are invalidated from testifying and judging (as we learned in Sanhedrin). So it seems to 'Mashi'ach'.




תוס' ד"ה ' "טמא יהיה" מכל מקום'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Pasuk did not avoid inserting "Yih'yeh" by simply omitting "Asher").

קשה, לישתוק מ"אשר" ומ"יהיה"?


Question: Let the Pasuk omit the word "Asher", and it will not be necessary to insert "Yih'yeh"?

ויש לומר, ד"אשר" אורחיה דקרא הוא.


Answer: The Pasuk cannot omit "Asher", since it is the way of the pasuk to insert it.



תוס' ד"ה ' אינו צ"ל חריש וקציר של שביעית ... '.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how R. Akiva can mention Charish together with Katzir, when in fact, Charish is not written in B'har).

תימה, דבשלמא "קציר" כתיב בהאי ענינא: "את ספיח קצירך לא תקצור", אבל "חרישה" לא כתיב כלל התם?


Question: Whereas 'Katzir' is written in the Pasuk in B'har ("Eis Sefi'ach Ketzircha Lo Siktzor"), 'Charish' is not. So how can R. Akiva mention it together with Katzir as if it was?

וכ"ת, דילפינן מקראי דכתיבי כל שאר עבודות קרקע.


Suggested Answer: Perhaps we can answer that we learn all the other Avodos Karka from the Pesukim that are written in B'har.

הא איכא מ"ד פ"ק דמו"ק (דף ג:) דדוקא אהנך דכתיבי בהדיא מיחייב, אבל אינך לא; וחרישה גופה ממעט התם מדקאמר 'החורש בשביעית אינו לוקה'.


Refutation: That is not correct however, seeing as according to one opinion in Mo'ed Katan, one is Chayav only for those Avodos that are written explicitly there. Moreover, the Gemara specifically presents Charishah as an example of one those that is not.

וי"ל, דכיון דקסבר ד"קציר" אתי לתוספת, "חריש" נמי אתא לתוספת.


Answer: Nevertheless, since according to R. Akiva, "Katzir" comes to forbid Tosefes Shevi'is, so does "Charish" (see Chochmas Shlomoh).



תוס' ד"ה 'דלמא חרישת העומר דמצוה, ואמר רחמנא "תשבות"?'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need to learn the Isur of plowing on Shabbos for a Mitzvah from "Tishbos", and not from the fact that we do not have a Pasuk to permit it).

קצת קשה, לישתוק מיניה ד"תשבות", ומהיכי תיתי לן למישרי, דהא למישריי' מצרכינן קרא?


Question: Let the Torah omit "Tishbos", and plowing for a Mitzvah would have been forbidden anyway, seeing as, without a specific Pasuk to permit it, why would we have thought that it is permitted?

וי"ל, דהא לא חייש רק לסתור דרשא דאשמעינן 'מה חריש רשות'; ומעתה נאמר דאתא לדרשא אחרינא.


Answer: Currently, we are only concerned with refuting the D'rashah of 'Mah Charish R'shus', and to demonstrate that it comes to teach us a different D'rashah.



תוס' ד"ה 'והא אמרת "יצא האב המכה בנו"? '

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara cannot answer that the Mishnah is speaking about a father who strikes his son in the forest and kills him).

קשה [לר"י], דהיינו דוקא כשמייסרו ומכהו בתוכחתו, אבל אם הלך ביער והרגו בשוגג למה לא יגלה?


Question: But surely, asks the Ri, that is only if he strikes him to chastise him, but if he is going in the forest and his father kills him, why should he not go into Galus?

וי"ל דמשמע ליה דמיירי בכל ענין, אף אם מכהו לייסרו, דאם לא כן, אמאי נקט טפי בן מאדם אחר?


Answer: The questioner understood that the Mishnah must be speaking in all cases, even where the father is hitting his son to chastise him; otherwise, why mention specifically a son, and not anybody else?