1)

TOSFOS DH ki'Ne'ureha Prat li'Me'uberes

úåñôåú ã"ä ëðòåøéä ôøè ìîòåáøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn from a different verse.)

åàí úàîø úéôå÷ ìéä îåæøò àéï ìä òééï òìéä

(a)

Question: We already know this from "v'Zera Ein Lah" - Ayen (investigate) about her (see whether she is pregnant)!

ëé äéëé ãôñìéðï áøéù äçåìõ (éáîåú ìä:) çìéöú îòåáøú îàéï ìå òééï òìéå

1.

This should be just like we disqualify in Yevamos (35b) Chalitzah of a Me'uberes from "Ein Lo" - Ayen about him.

åé"ì ãäúí ìà ÷àîø àìà òééï åäîúï àí éäéä åìã ùì ÷ééîà àáì ìà îéôèøà îï äéáåí îùåí ãëúéá àéï ìå

(b)

Answer: There, it says only Ayen, and wait [to see] whether the baby will be viable, but she is not exempt from Yibum just because it says Ein Lo;

åä"ð ìà îéôñìà îï äúøåîä áäëé.

1.

Also here, she is not disqualified from Terumah due to this. (In both cases, concern for a viable baby does not change the Chazakah.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Sheshes... b'Kohen she'Yesh Lo Beis Nashim

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá ùùú... áëäï ùéù ìå á' ðùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he holds that all agree that a fetus has Zechiyah.)

åà"ú ìîä ìé á' ðùéí ìå÷îä áàùä àçú âøåùä åéù ìå áï àçã îîðä

(a)

Question #1: Why must we say that he has two wives? We should establish it when he has one divorced wife, and one son from her;

ããå÷à áï éåí àçã ôåñì åìà òåáø åàëìé äòáãéí áùáéì ëì äîùôçä ëåìä ìøáðï ãø' éåñé ëãàîø áéáîåú áôø÷ àìîðä (ãó ñæ.)

1.

Only a one day old disqualifies, but not a fetus. The slaves eat due to the entire family, according to Rabanan of R. Yosi, like it says in Yevamos (67a)!

åòåã ä÷ùä ä"ø àôøéí ãáôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷îá.) àîø øá ùùú àçã æä åàçã æä ÷ðä áéï îæëä ìòåáø áéï ìëùúìã

(b)

Question #2 (R. Efrayim): In Bava Basra (142a), Rav Sheshes said that both of these acquire, whether one is Zocheh (acquires on behalf of) the fetus [now], or for [the baby,] when she will give birth!

åôøéê ìéä îîúðé' ãáï éåí àçã ðåçì àáì òåáø ìà åîùðé ãäúí îùåí ãàéäå îééú áøéùà

1.

He asks from the Mishnah [there] that a one day old inherits, but [we infer that] a fetus does not, and answers that there [we discuss inheriting his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers], it is because the fetus dies first. (When his mother dies, the fetus already died, so he cannot inherit her.)

åäùúà ìéôøåê îøéùà ãáï éåí àçã ôåñì àáì òåáø ìà îùåí ãòåáø ìéú ìéä æëééä ëãîôøù äëà øá ùùú âåôéä åìà ä"î ìùðåéé îéãé

2.

Now, we ask from the Reisha, that a one day old disqualifies, but a fetus does not, because a fetus has no Zechiyah, like Rav Sheshes himself explains there, and he could not answer anything! (The answer given there does not apply here.)

åé"ì ãñáø øá ùùú ãìøáðï ãø' éåñé ðîé òåáø àéú ìéä æëééä åèòîà ãòåáø àéðå ôåñì îùåí ñîåê îéòåèà ãîôéìåú ìîçöä ãð÷áåú

(c)

Answer: Rav Sheshes holds that also Rabanan who argue with R. Yosi hold that [a fetus] has Zechiyah. The reason he does not disqualify is because we join the minority of Nefalim to the half [of all fetuses] that are females;

åäåä ìéä æëøéí îéòåèà åìîéòåèà ìà çééùéðï ëãçééù øáé éåñé

1.

[Viable] males are the minority. [Chachamim] are not concerned for the minority, [un]like R. Yosi, who is concerned.

åìäëé àå÷é äëà áëäï ùéù ìå á' ðùéí åéù ìå áðéí îùàéðä âøåùä

(d)

Support #1: This is why here we establish it when he has two wives, and he has sons from the one who is not divorced;

ãëéåï ãéù ìå áðéí ìà ôñéì òåáø àó ò"â ãéù ìå æëééä ãìà çééùéðï ìîéòåè äæëøéí ëãôé'

1.

Since he has sons, the fetus does not disqualify, even though he has Zechiyah, for we are concerned for the minority of males, like I explained;

àáì àí àéï ìå áðéí ôåñì òåáø âí ìøáðï ãàéú ìéä æëééä ãáéï äåà æëø áéï äéà ð÷áä äøé äï ùìä

i.

However, if he has no sons, the fetus disqualifies also according to Rabanan, for it (the fetus) has Zechiyah. Whether it is a male or female, they (the slaves) belong to it.

åôìéâ øá ùùú àùîåàì ãàîø áôø÷ àìîðä (éáîåú ãó ñæ.) ãìøáðï àåëìéï áùáéì ëì äîùôçä ëåìä

2.

Rav Sheshes argues with Shmuel, who said in Yevamos (67a) that according to Rabanan, the slaves eat [Terumah] due to the entire family;

ãñáø ùîåàì ãìøáðï ìéú ìéä æëééä ìòåáø

i.

Shmuel holds that the fetus has no Zechiyah.

åäùúà ðéçà äà ã÷àîø äúí øá ùùú îðà àîéðà ìä ãúðéà âø ùîú ëå'

(e)

Support #2: Now it is fine that Rav Sheshes said there "what is my source? A Beraisa teaches that if a convert died...

åìà ãçé ìéä ãäê áøééúà ëø' éåñé ãøáðï ðîé ìà ôìéâé àìà ãìà çééùé ìîéòåèà ëãôé'

1.

We do not reject that the Beraisa is like R. Yosi, for also Rabanan argue only regarding that they are not concerned for the minority, like I explained.

åàí úàîø ãáôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷îá.) âáé âø ùîú åáæáæå éùøàì ðëñéå åäéúä àùúå îòåáøú ìà ÷ðå

(f)

Question: In Bava Basra (142a), regarding a convert who died, and Yisre'elim plundered his property, and his wife was pregnant, they did not acquire;

ùîòå àçøé ëï ùäôéìä àùúå äîçæé÷ áùðéä ÷ðä áøàùåðä ìà ÷ðä

1.

If they heard afterwards that she miscarried, one who seized the second time acquired, but one who seized the first time did not acquire.

àîàé ìà ÷ðä äîçæé÷ áøàùåðä ëéåï ãìáñåó äôéìä

2.

Why didn't one who seized the first time acquire? In the end she miscarried!

äà áô' àìîðä (éáîåú ñæ:) àîøéðï ãæëøéí äåå îéòåèà îùåí îéòåèà ãîôéìåú åàéï ìòåáø ùñåôå ìäéåú ðôì çì÷ áòáãéí

i.

In Yevamos (67b) we say that [viable] males are the minority, due to the minority of Nefalim (which joins with the half that are females), and a fetus that will be a Nefel has no share in the slaves!

åé"ì ãäúí îùåí ãúìéðï ùîà ëáø áùòú àëéìú äòáãéí îú äòåáø ááèï åìéú ìéä æëééä.

(g)

Answer: There, we attribute that at the time the slaves eat, the fetus already died in the womb, and [the fetus] has no Zechiyah.

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Iy Bo'i Minai Leiros v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé áòé îéðéä ìéøåú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Makshan understood.)

åà"ú ãáôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ÷îá.) ãôøéê ìøá ùùú îäê ãáï éåí à' ðåçì åîðçéì àáì òåáø ìà åîùðé ðåçì àú äàí ìäðçéì ìàçéí îï äàá

(a)

Question: In Bava Basra (142a), we challenge Rav Sheshes from this Mishnah that a one day old inherits and bequeaths, but [we infer that] a fetus does not, and answers that he inherits his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers;

åäùúà îä äéúä ñáøú äî÷ùä ãò"ë öøéê ìåîø ëãîùðé øá ùùú

1.

What did the Makshan think? You are forced to say like Rav Sheshes answers;

ãàé ìàå äëé ú÷ùä ìéä àé áòé îéðéä ìéøåú àé áòé îàáåä ìéøåú ëãî÷ùä äëà

i.

If not, it is difficult for him (the Makshan), if he wants, he can inherit from him (the baby) and if he wants, he can inherit from his father (there is no practical difference to say that the baby inherits and bequeaths), like it asks here!

åé"ì ãéôøù ëîø áøéä ãøá éåñó ùîîòè áçì÷ áëåøä àáì òåáø ìà

(b)

Answer #1: He explains like Mar brei d'Rav Yosef (Amud B), that he (a born baby) diminishes the firstborn's extra share, but a fetus does not.

åìàå îùåí åéìãå ìå àìà îùåí ãòåáø ìéú ìéä æëééä

1.

This is not due to "v'Yaldu Lo", rather, because a fetus has no Zechiyah.

à"ð éãò ùôéø ëãîùðé øá ùùú ðåçì àú äàí ìäðçéì ìàçéå îï äàá àê äéä ñáåø ãàéäé îééúà áøéùà å÷àîø òåáø ìà îùåí ãìà ÷ðä

(c)

Answer #2: He (the Makshan) knew like Rav Sheshes answers, that he inherits his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers, but he thought that she (the mother) dies first, and he said that a fetus does not (inherit to bequeath), because he does not acquire (he does not have Zechiyah).

åáùéìäé ô"÷ ãòøëéï (ãó æ.) ãàîø ùîåàì àùä ùéöúä ìéäøâ îëéï àåúä ëðâã äøéåï ùìä ëãé ùéîåú äåìã úçìä äà ìàå äëé äåìã îú ìáñåó

(d)

Implied question: In Erchin (7a), Shmuel said that a woman who was taken out for execution, we hit her opposite [the place of] her pregnancy so the child will die first. This implies that if not, the fetus dies after her;

åôøéê ìéä îäà ãáï éåí àçã ðåçì àìîà åìã îú úçìä

1.

We challenge him from this [Mishnah] that a one day old inherits. This shows that the fetus dies first!

äåä îöé ìùðåéé àáì òåáø ìà ìåîø ùîîòè áçì÷ áëåø ëãàîø áùîòúéï

2.

Why didn't we answer that "but not a fetus" teaches that he does not diminish the firstborn's extra share, like it says in our Sugya?

àìà ãðéçà ìéä ìàå÷îé îéìúà ãøá ùùú ãàîø äëà àéäå îééú áøéùà àìéáà ãùîåàì åìçì÷ äàîú ùéù çéìå÷ áéï îúä ìðäøâä.

(e)

Answer: He prefers to establish Rav Sheshes, who said here that he (the fetus) dies first, according to Shmuel, and to distinguish that really, there is a difference between when she died and when she was killed.

4)

TOSFOS DH Ihu Mayis b'Reisha

úåñôåú ã"ä àéäå îééú áøéùà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when the fetus can outlive its mother.)

åäà ãúðï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ãó òã.) äùåçè àú äáäîä åîöà áä áï è' çé

(a)

Implied question: It says in Chulin (74a) that if one slaughtered an animal and found a live nine-month fetus inside... (This shows that the mother can die first!)

éù çéìå÷ áéï îúä ìðäøâä ëãàîø áòøëéï (ãó æ.)

(b)

Answer: There is a difference between if the mother died or was killed, like it says in Erchin (7a).

åäà ãàîø ðîé áäùåçè áîúä àîä åäãø éìéãúéä

(c)

Implied question: It says also in Chulin (74a) "if the mother died, and afterwards the fetus was born..." (This connotes that even when the mother died, the fetus can outlive the mother!)

äééðå ðîé ëùðäøâä

(d)

Answer #1: Also this refers to when the mother was killed.

àé ðîé ëâåï ãîúä àîå îçîú ìéãä ãëéåï ãò÷ø äåìã ìöàú àæ ìà îééú

(e)

Answer #2: The mother died due to birth. Since the fetus was uprooted to leave, then it does not die;

ëãàîø ùîåàì ùéìäé ô"÷ ãòøëéï (ãó æ.) éùáä òì äîùáø åîúä îçúëéï àåúä áùáú åîåöéàéï äåìã

1.

This is like Shmuel taught in Erchin (7a) that if she sat on the birthing stool and died, we cut her open on Shabbos and remove the fetus.

åà"ú àí ëï òåáø ðåçì åîðçéì áéùáä òì äîùáø åîúä úçìä

(f)

Question: If so, a fetus inherits and bequeaths when she sat on the birthing stool and [she] died first!

é"ì ãàéï äëé ðîé åð÷è áï éåí àçã îùåí ãôñé÷à ìéä ãðåçì åîðçéì àáì òåáø ìà ôñé÷à ìéä

(g)

Answer: Indeed, this is true. The Mishnah mentions one day, for then it is uniformly true that he inherits and bequeaths. It is not uniform regarding a fetus.

åîéäà áï éåí àçã ääåøâå çééá ã÷úðé àáì òåáø ìà äééðå àôéìå ðäøâä àå éùáä òì äîùáø òã ùéöà øàùå

1.

However, [the Mishnah] teaches that one who kills a one day old is liable, but not [for killing] a fetus. This is even if she was killed or sat on the birthing stool, until the head comes out;

ëãúðï áîñëú àäìåú ô"æ (îùðä å) åîééúé ìä áôø÷ áï ñåøø åîåøä (ñðäãøéï ãó òá:) àùä äî÷ùä çåúê (îëàï îòîåã á) àáø àáø (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä, åáîùðä ùí) éöà øàùå àéï ãåçéï ðôù îôðé ðôù

2.

This is like the Mishnah in Ohalos (7:6), brought in Sanhedrin (72b), if a woman is in danger due to labor, we cut the fetus limb by limb. If the head comes out [it is considered born, and] we do not override one Nefesh (kill the baby) for the sake of another Nefesh (to save her).

44b----------------------------------------44b

åîéäå àôùø ããå÷à äéëà ãàîå çéä ìà îéçééá äåøâå òã ùéöà øàùå ùúìåé ÷öú áçéåú àîå

(h)

Distinction: However, perhaps only when his mother is alive, one who kills him is not liable until his head emerges, for his life depends partly on his mother's life;

àáì äéëà ãîúä çééá îùåí ãëîåðç á÷åôñà ãîé

1.

However, when she died, he is liable, because [the baby is considered] like resting in a box.

åà"ú àí úîöé ìåîø ãîåúø ìäåøâå ááèï àôé' îúä àîå åìà äåé ëîåðç á÷åôñà àîàé îçììéï òìéå àú äùáú

(i)

Question: If you will say that one may kill him in the womb, even if the mother died, and he is not considered like resting in a box, why are we Mechalel Shabbos for him?

ùîáéàéï ñëéï ãøê ø"ä ì÷øåò äàí ëãîåëç áô' ÷îà ãòøëéï (ãó æ:)

1.

We bring a knife through Reshus ha'Rabim to tear the mother, like is proven in Erchin (7b)!

åé"ì ãîëì î÷åí îùåí ô÷åç ðôù îçììéï òìéå àú äùáú àó ò"â ãîåúø ìäøâå

(j)

Answer: In any case, due to Piku'ach Nefesh we are Mechalel Shabbos even though it is permitted to kill him;

1.

Note: The Ya'avetz points out that this is not precise. Even though one is exempt for killing him, surely one may not kill him without reason! Shmuel taught that we kill a fetus before executing the mother to inhibit disgrace to her, for it is a limb of her, and without a Refu'ah (solution) it is destined to die with her.

ãäà âåññ áéãé àãí ääåøâå ôèåø ëãàîø ôø÷ äðùøôéï (ñðäãøéï òç.) ãøåá âåññéí ìîéúä

2.

A Goses (someone dangerously sick) due to human acts, one who kills him is exempt, like it says in Sanhedrin (78a), for most Gosesim die...

åîçììéï àú äùáú òìéå ëãàîø ôø÷ áúøà ãéåîà (ã' ôã:) ãàéï îäìëéï áô÷åç ðôù àçø äøåá.

3.

[Even so] we are Mechalel Shabbos for him, like it says in Yoma (84b), that we do not follow the majority regarding Piku'ach Nefesh.

5)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima v'Yaldu Lo Ba'inan

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà åéìãå ìå áòéðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that not all expound this.)

ìî"ã äîæëä ìòåáø ìà ÷ðä ìà àéöèøéê ìîãøù îåéìãå ëãàîø áô' îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷îá:).

(a)

Observation: According to the opinion that one who is Mezakeh for a fetus, he does not acquire, he need not expound from v'Yaldu, like it says in Bava Basra (142b).

6)

TOSFOS DH Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Afilu Kol Dehu

úåñôåú ã"ä àéù ëé éëä ëì ðôù àôéìå ëì ãäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks out that elsewhere, we learn from another verse.)

äàé ÷øà ëúéá áàîåø àì äëäðéí

(a)

Explanation: This verse is written in Parshas Emor.

åúéîä ãáøéù äðçð÷éï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôã:) ãøéù î÷øà àçøéðà ãëúéá áàìä îñòé ëì îëä ðôù.

(b)

Question: In Sanhedrin (84b), we expound [this from] another verse written in Eleh Mas'ei "Kol Makeh Nefesh"!

7)

TOSFOS DH Ha Lo Shahah Sefeka Havi

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ìà ùää ñô÷à äåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rabanan have two arguments with R. Shimon ben Gamliel.)

îùîò äëà ãìøáðï äåé èôé áø ÷ééîà îìøùá"â ãàôéìå áï éåí à' äåé ìãéãäå áï ÷ééîà åëï áô' äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìå:)

(a)

Inference: Rabanan hold that he is viable more than R. Shimon ben Gamliel does, for they considered even a one day old to be viable, and similarly in Yevamos (36b).

åàéìå áúåñôúà îúðéà ôìåâúééäå òì áï ç' ãìøáðï àôéìå ùää ùìùéí éåí äåé ðôì

(b)

Question: The Tosefta teaches that they argue about a Ben Shemoneh (born after eight months of pregnancy). Rabanan hold that even if he lived 30 days, he is a Nefel;

åàúà øùá"â ìîéîø ãàí ùää ì' éåí äåé áø ÷ééîà ãàîø áï æ' äåà åàéùúäåéé àùúäé åëï áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó ô:)

1.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that if he lived 30 days, he is viable. He says that he is a Ben Shiv'ah (who develops fully in this time), and he delayed [coming out]! It says so also in Yevamos (80b).

åéù ìåîø ãáúøúé ôìéâé åãéé÷ îãìà ÷àîø øùá"â àí ùää ì' éåí àéðå ðôì ëéåï ã÷àé àøáðï ãàîøé ááø ç' ãäåé ðôì

(c)

Answer: They argue about two matters. We infer from the fact that R. Shimon ben Gamliel did not say "if he lived 30 days, he is not a Nefel", since he discusses the opinion of Rabanan, who say that a Ben Shemoneh is a Nefel. (If he argued only about a Ben Shemoneh, he should have said "if he lived...");

åîãð÷è ëì ùùää îùîò ãáëì åìãåú áòé øùá"â éåí ì' åàí ëï ùîòéðäå ìøáðï ãìàå áì' úìåé àìà áçãùé ääøéåï

1.

Since he [rather] said "whoever lived", this implies that for all babies, R. Shimon ben Gamliel requires 30 days. If so, we infer that Rabanan hold that it does not depend on 30 days, rather, on the months of pregnancy. (A seven or nine-month baby is immediately assumed to be viable.)

8)

TOSFOS DH d'Kam Lei d'Chalu Lo Chadashav

úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷éí ìéä ãëìå ìå çãùéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when there is a Safek.)

äà ìà ÷éí ìéä ñô÷à äåé åáðôì îï äââ àå àëìå àøé àééøé

(a)

Explanation: If he does not know, it is a Safek. We discuss when he fell from the roof, or a lion ate him;

ãáôéä÷ åîú àôéìå ìøáðï äåé ðôì ëãàîø ôø÷ øáé àìéòæø àí ìà äáéà (ùáú ÷ìå.)

1.

If he yawned and died, even according to Rabanan it is a Nefel, like it says in Shabbos (136a).

åàí úàîø àí ëï îàé èòîà ãøùá"â ëéåï ãìéëà øéòåúà àîàé àéðå îúàáì òìéå ãðéæéì àçø øåá åìãåú ãäåå áðé ÷ééîà

(b)

Question #1: If so, what is the reason of R. Shimon ben Gamliel, since there is no Re'usa (something suggesting a problem)? Why doesn't he mourn over him? We should follow the majority of babies, who are viable!

åáô' øáé àìéòæø àí ìà äáéà (ùí) ãàñø ääåà òâìä ãàùúçéè áéåîà ãùáéòàä îùåí ãäúí ôñé÷ äìëä ëøùá"â àîàé ìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà

(c)

Question #2: In Shabbos (136a), (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) forbade a calf that was slaughtered on the seventh day, for there we rule like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Why don't we follow the majority?

åé"ì ãðôìéï äåé îéòåè ãùëéç åãáø ääååä äåà åìëê äçîéøå çëîéí åìòðéï àáìåú ä÷éìå

(d)

Answer: Nefalim are a common minority. Therefore, Chachamim were stringent. Regarding Avelus, they were lenient.

åâãåìä îæàú îöéðå ãàîø áôø÷ éù áëåø (áëåøåú ãó îè.) ãéåí ì' ëùìôðéå ìòðéï àáìåú

(e)

Support: We find even more [disparity between Avelus and other laws] than this, in Bechoros (49a) that day 30 is like the day before regarding Avelus...

àò"â ã÷é"ì áäçåìõ (éáîåú ìå:) ãîú áéåí ì' åòîãä åðú÷ãùä àí àùú ëäï äéà àéðä çåìöú ãçùéá áø ÷ééîà

1.

Even though we hold in Yevamos (36b) that if [the baby] died on day 30, and [his mother] became Mekudeshes (this was her husband's only child, so if he was a Nefel, she needs Chalitzah or Yibum) if the Mekadesh is a Kohen, she does not do Chalitzah [which would forbid her to him], for we consider the baby to be viable!

åà"ú ãäëà àîø ãáìà ùää ñô÷à äåà åàéðå îúàáì òìéå

(f)

Question: It says here that if he did not delay (live 30 days), it is a Safek, and he does not observe Avelus for him;

åáîñëú ùîçåú (ô"ã ä"á) úðï ñô÷ àçéå ñô÷ àéðå àçéå îúàáì òìéå

1.

In Maseches Semachos (4:2), it says if it is a Safek whether or not he is his brother, he observes Avelus for him!

åé"ì ãùàðé äúí ëéåï ãáø ÷ééîà äåà àé àéï îúàáì òìéå ñáøé òìîà ãàéï îúàáìéï òì àçéï

(g)

Answer #1: There is different. Since he was viable, if he will not observe Avelus for him, people will think that there is no Avelus over brothers.

à"ð áñô÷ áï è' ìøàùåï àå áï æ' ìàçøåï ãîä ðôùê çã îéðééäå çééá åâðàé äãáø ìôèåø ùðéäí.

(h)

Answer #2: Regarding a Safek whether he was born after nine months [of pregnancy] from the first husband, or after seven months from the latter, in any case one of them is obligated [to observe Avelus, just we do not know which], it is disgraceful to exempt both of them.

9)

TOSFOS DH Sheloshim Yom Ika Beinaihu

úåñôåú ã"ä ùìùéí éåí àéëà áéðééäå

(SUMMARY: 1. Tosfos explains why we cannot explain the argument differently. 2. Tosfos shows that the Mishnah in Kesuvos is like R. Meir.)

äà ãìà ÷àîø éåí àçã áùðä çùåá ùðä àéëà áéðééäå

(a)

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that they argue about whether or not one day in a year is considered like a year?

ãìøáé îàéø áá' ùðéí åéåí àçã ñâé åìà äåé ôìéâ àáøééúà ãáñîåê

1.

According to R. Meir, two years and one day suffice. [If so], he does not argue with the Beraisa below!

äééðå îùåí ãùðú â' áùáéì éåí àçã ìà äåä ÷øé ìéä ùìù ùðéí

(b)

Answer: [We cannot say so,] for due to one day in the third year, we would not call it three years.

åà"ú åìéîà ãéåí øàùåï ùì ùðä øáéòéú àéëà áéðééäå

(c)

Question: Why doesn't it say that they argue about [whether we require] one day in the fourth year?

ãìøáé îàéø áî÷öú äéåí ñâé åìøáðï áòéðï îòú ìòú òã ùòä ùðåìãä ëãàîø ô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ëä:) ãùòåú ôåñìåú á÷ãùéí

1.

According to R. Meir, part of the day suffices. Rabanan require me'Es la'Es (24 hours) from when he was born, like it says in Zevachim (25b) that hours disqualify Kodshim! (It begins its first [or second or third...] year on the same day it was born, at the same time of day.)

åé"ì ã÷éí ìéä ãøáðï ìà áòå îòú ìòú

(d)

Answer #1: He knew that Rabanan do not require me'Es la'Es.

åòåã ãàí ëï àó ìø' îàéø äåä ìéä ìîúðé â' ùðéí åéåí àçã åäåä ìéä ìôøåùé ãìà áòéðï îòú ìòú

(e)

Answer #2: If so, also according to R. Meir it should say three years and a day, and he should have specified that we do not require me'Es la'Es.

åäà ãúðï áôø÷ àìå ðòøåú (ëúåáåú ãó ëè.) äâéåøú ùðúâééøä ôçåúä îáú â' ùðéí åéåí àçã éù ìä ÷ðñ

(f)

Implied question: The [Stam] Mishnah (Kesuvos 29a) teaches that if a girl less than three years and a day converted, there is a fine for her [if she is raped. A Stam Mishnah is assumed to be R. Meir!]

ìà àúéà ëøáé îàéø îãîöøéê éåí àçã àçø ùìù ùðéí

(g)

Answer: It is unlike R. Meir, since it requires a day after three years.

åàí úàîø åäéëé îåëç äúí ãøéùà ëøáé îàéø ã÷àîø ôø÷ àìå ðòøåú ðòøä àéï ÷èðä ìà

(h)

Question: How is it proven there that the Reisha (the Mishnah on 29a) is like R. Meir, who says in Kesuvos (40b) [that there is a fine only for] a Na'arah, but not for a minor?

åäúí ò"ë àñéôà ãîúðé' ñîéê ã÷úðé ëì î÷åí ùéù îëø àéï ÷ðñ

(i)

Answer: There, you are forced to say that we rely on the Seifa (40b), which taught "whenever there is a sale (one can sell his daughter to be an Amah Ivriyah), there is no fine (if she is raped or enticed);

ãîðòøåú àéëà ìîéîø ãìà àúé ìîòåèé ÷èðåú àìà áåâøåú

1.

From the word "Na'aros" (the Mishnah says that "there is a fine for these Na'aros"), we can say that it does not come to exclude minors, rather, Bogros.

ãáôø÷ àøáò îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ãó ñå:) úðï àéï çééá äáà òì ðòøä äîàåøñä òã ùúäà ðòøä

2.

Source: In Sanhedrin (66b), a Mishnah says that one is not liable for Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah until she is a Na'arah;

åãéé÷ äúí ãàúà ìàôå÷é ÷èðä ãàé ìàôå÷é áåâøú àìà òì ðòøä îáòé ìéä

i.

We infer there that it comes to exclude a minor, for if it came to exclude a Bogeres, it should have said [that one is liable] only for a Na'arah!

àìîà ðòøä àôéìå ÷èðä îùîò àìà àñéôà ñîéê ëãôøéùéú

ii.

Inference: Na'arah connotes even a minor! Rather, he relies on the Seifa, like I explained.

åäéëé ãéé÷ îñéôà ãîúðé' ãøéùà ðîé ø"î ëéåï ãîöéòúà ìà àúéà ëååúéä

(j)

Question: How do we infer from the Seifa that also the Reisha is R. Meir, since the middle is unlike R. Meir? (Mishnayos in between discuss a fine for a girl who converted or was freed below three years and a day.)

åé"ì ãìàå îîù ø"î äéà ÷àîø àìà ããéé÷ ãúðà ãääåà ôéø÷à ñáø ã÷èðä àéï ìä ÷ðñ ëã÷úðé áñéôà åà"ë ðòøåú ð÷è ìàôå÷é ÷èðåú

(k)

Answer: We do not mean that R. Meir himself taught it. Rather, we infer that the Tana of that Perek holds that there is no fine for a minor, like it taught in the Seifa. If so, it taught "Na'aros" to exclude minors.

åøáà ãôøéê áô"÷ ãëúåáåú (ãó éà.) äâéåøú éù ìä ÷ðñ éäáéðï ìä ÷ðñ ãàæìä åàëìä áäéåúä ðëøéú

(l)

Implied question: Rava asked in Kesuvos (11a) [why the Mishnah says that] a convert receives a fine - do we give to her a fine, and [she can renounce her conversion before maturing] and consume the fine when she is a Nochris [who does not deserve a fine]?!

àìîà ñáø ãîúðé' ñáø ã÷èðä éù ìä ÷ðñ

1.

Inference: He holds that the Mishnah holds that there is a fine for a minor!

äééðå îùåí ãñáø ëéåï ãäê ááà ãâéåøú ìà àúéà ëø' îàéø áîàé ãð÷è ùìù ùðéí åéåí àçã àí ëï âí ìòðéï ã÷èðä éù ìä ÷ðñ àúéà ëøáðï] åä"ä

(m)

Answer: This is because he holds that since this clause of a convert is unlike R. Meir, since it says three years and a day, if so also regarding a fine for a minor, it is like Rabanan.

ãôøéê áô' ã' åä' (á"÷ ìç:) îîúðé' ãàìå ðòøåú (ãó ëè.) ã÷úðé ëåúéú éù ìä ÷ðñ ìøáé îàéø àò"â ãääéà ãâéåøú ìà àúéà ëø"î

1.

Implied question: [R. Zeira] asks in Bava Kama (38b), from the Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a), which says that a Kusis has a fine according to R. Meir. (Why must we say that it is like R. Meir?) The clause of a convert is unlike R. Meir!

î"î ëéåï ãñúí îúðé' ø"î äéà îàé ãîöéðï ìàå÷åîé ëååúéä îå÷îéðï.

2.

Answer: In any case, since a Stam Mishnah is [assumed to be] R. Meir, whatever we can establish like him, we establish.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF