תוספות ד"ה שבועות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Meseches starts the way it does.)

הא דלא פתח האי מסכת כל כינויי שבועות כשבועות כדפתח נדרים ונזיר


Implied Question: The Meseches did not start off by saying "all words indicating Shevuos are like Shevuos" as it did in Mesechtos Nedarim and Nazir. (Why not?)

משום דתנא ממכות קא סליק כדמפרש בגמרא הוצרך לפתוח בשתים שהן ארבע והואיל ולא מצי פתח בכינוי תו לא חש לשנות אח"כ


Answer: Being that the Tanna was finishing Meseches Makos, as explained in the Gemara (2b-3a), he needed to start off by saying "two that are four" (the topic similar to that discussed at the end of Makos). Being that he could not start by discussing words indicating Shevuos, he did not state this afterwards.

וא"ת אמאי לא תני ידיעות ברישא דהא בקרא כתיב ברישא או נפש אשר תגע וגו' והדר או נפש כי תשבע וגו'


Question: Why didn't he first discuss knowing (and not knowing) about becoming impure? In the Pasuk, it first states, "Or a soul that will touch etc." (Vayikra 5:2) and only afterwards does it state "Or a soul that will swear etc." (Vayikra 5:4)!

וי"ל דשבועות הוא עיקר המסכת דבסדר ישועות קאי ואגב שבועות תני ידיעות משום דגבי הדדי כתיבן כדמפרש בגמרא


Answer#1: It is possible to answer that Shevuos is the main topic of the Meseches, as it is in Nezikin. Once the Mishnah mentions Shevuos it also mentions knowing about impurity, being that the two are close together in the Torah (Vayikra 5:2-4), as explained in the Gemara.

א"נ משום דמילי דשבועות כתיבי בקרא ברישא ונפש כי תחטא וגו' (ויקרא ה) והוא עד דהיינו שבועת העדות


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that because the topic of Shevuos is discussed in the Pesukim first, as the Pasuk states, "And a soul that will sin...and he is a witness" regarding Shevuos ha'Eidus, it is also discussed first in our Mishnah.

והאי דלא פתח בשבועת העדות


Implied Question: The Mishnah did not start by discussing Shevuas ha'Eidus. [Why isn't this topic discussed first if the entire topic of Shevuos is discussed first in the Mishnah because of Shevuas ha'Eidus?]

משום דלית בהו שתים שהן ארבע


Answer: This is because Shevuos ha'Eidus does not have a category of things that are two that are four (and as we said earlier, this is what the Tanna would like to continue to discuss from the end of Makos).



תוס' ד"ה ידיעות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah does not label the categories "Ha'alamas ha'Tumah" or "Yedios Shabbos.")

תימה דהעלמות הו"ל למיתני דהיא עיקר מילתא העלם טומאה דקודש ומקדש והעלם קודש ומקדש


Question: This is difficult. It should have stated "Ha'alamos" -- "being hidden" ("Ha'alamos ha'Tumah" instead of "Yedios ha'Tumah"), as this is the main point. The main point is forgetting about impurity of Kodesh or the Mikdash, and forgetting about the status of Kodesh or impurity in the Mikdash.

וי"ל דניחא ליה למנקט לשון ידיעה מטעמא דמפורש בפ"ב (דף יד:) ידיעות קמייתא דליתנהו בכל התורה כולה קא חשיב


Answer#1: The Mishnah would rather use a term of "knowing" for the reason explained later (14b) that the first cases of knowing that are not in the entire Torah are included. [Rashi there (DH "Lesnehu") explains that there are cases where a person never knew that a piece of meat was Cheilev, and he still liable if he eats it and later found out it was Cheilev. This case does not involve forgetting, and yet still makes one liable to bring a Korban. This is why "Yedios" is more appropriate of a name than "Ha'alamos."]

א"נ לאידך לישנא דידיעות בתרייתא דאתיין לידי קרבן קא חשיב


Answer#2: Alternatively, for the other version of the Gemara there (14b), one could answer that the later "knowings" (after the accidental transgression) that make one liable to bring a Korban are reason to use the word Yedios.

ולהך לישנא הא דלא תני נמי ידיעות השבת


Implied Question: According to this version of the Gemara, the Mishnah did not say "Yedios ha'Shabbos." [Why didn't it use this term if what makes him liable is realizing his transgression?]

משום דניחא ליה למינקט יציאות דבמלאכות גופייהו איכא שתים שהן ארבע אבל הכא לא מצי למינקט הטומאות שתים שהן ד' דליכא אלא תרתי טומאת קודש וטומאת מקדש


Answer: This is because it is better for the Mishnah to write "Yetzios," as regarding the performance of carrying itself there are two that are four ways to do so. However, regarding impurity the Mishnah cannot address two that are four types of impurity, as there are only two such ways, namely the impurity of Kodesh and the impurity in the Mikdash.



תוס' ד"ה יציאות השבת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we require cases of a poor person (outside) and rich person (inside) regarding carrying on Shabbos.)

בגמ' מפרש שתים הוצאה דעני ודבעל הבית שהן ארבע הכנסה דעני ודבעל הבית


Explanation: The Gemara explains that "two" refer to the taking out of the poor person and the owner of the house. "That are four" refer to the bringing in of the poor person and the owner of the house.

ותימה אמאי חשיב דעני ודבעל הבית בתרתי דמה לי עני ומה לי בעל הבית


Question: This is difficult. Why are the poor person and owner of the house counted as two separate cases? Why should it make a difference if it was a poor person who did it (i.e. person standing outside the house) or the owner of the house (i.e. one standing inside)?

ויש לומר דאצטריך למתנינהו משום דקס"ד דלא הוי דרך הוצאה אלא כשעומד ברשות היחיד ונטל פירות ויצא לרשות הרבים אבל כי האי גוונא דגופו ברשות היחיד וידו ברשות הרבים או איפכא לאו דרך הוצאה היא


Answer: Both cases had to be said. One might have thought that carrying normally is only when one stands in a private domain and takes fruits, and then goes into the public domain. However, carrying in such a way where his body is in the private domain and his hand is in the public domain, or in the opposite manner, is not normal.

ובכי האי גוונא אמר בפ"ק דשבת (דף ג:) ידו של אדם אינה לא כרשות היחיד ולא כרשות הרבים


In a similar fashion, the Gemara states in Shabbos (3b) that the hand of a person is not like a private domain and not like a public domain.

ואיצטריך למיתני תרוייהו דאי תנא חדא לא הוה שמעינן אידך ומהאי טעמא ניחא ליה דלא תני הך הוצאה שלישית כדפרישית


It therefore had to say both of these cases in our Mishnah, as if it would have only said one, we would not know about the other. For this reason it is also understandable why the Mishnah did not say a third case of taking out (where the owner of the house picks up fruit inside the house and walks outside into the public domain), as I have explained. [This carrying is obviously carrying, as stated above in (c).]

ור"ת מפרש דהוצאה מלאכה גרועה היא דמה לי אם מוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד ומה לי לרשות הרבים לכך הוצרך לפרש כל ענינים דעני ודעשיר


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that carrying is a weak Melachah. Why should it make a difference if one takes something from a private domain to a private domain (which is permitted according to Torah law in all cases) or if he takes it to a public domain? This is why it had to explain all these cases involving (examples of) a poor person and a rich man.

ותדע דמלאכה גרועה היא מדאמר בריש הזורק (שבת דף צו: ושם) הוצאה גופא היכא כתיבא ודריש לה מויכלא העם מהביא כו' וקאמר אשכחנא הוצאה הכנסה מנלן סברא היא מה לי אפוקי מה לי עיולי


Proof: You should know that it is a weak Melachah from the Gemara in Shabbos (96b). The Gemara states, where is carrying stated (that it was done in the building of the Mishkan)? The Gemara derives this from the Pasuk, "And the nation stopped bringing etc." The Gemara continues that this teaches taking out. How do we know that it is prohibited to bring something in? The Gemara answers that this is logical, as why should it make a difference to take out or to bring in?

ולשאר אבות לא בעינא קרא אלא מחייבינן כל דהוו במשכן והוצאה היתה במשכן כדאמר בפרק במה טומנין (שם דף מט:) הם הורידו קרשים מעגלה לקרקע ואתם אל תוציאו הם העלו קרשים לעגלה ואתם אל תכניסו


For other Avos (Melachos) we do not require a Pasuk. Rather, we say that they make one liable for transgressing Shabbos as long as they were done in the building of the Mishkan. Carrying was also done in the building of the Mishkan, as the Gemara states in Shabbos (49b) that they took down the beams from the wagons to the ground, as implied by the Pasuk "And you should not take out." They picked up the beams to the wagon as implied by the Pasuk, "And you should not take in."

ולשאר תולדות לא חיישינן דלהוו במשכן אלא אאב לחודה אבל תולדות דהוצאה בעי בפרק הזורק (שם דף צו:) או סברא או דלהוו במשכן כגון מכניס וזורק ומעביר ומושיט והיינו משום דמלאכה גרועה היא ואין להאריך כאן יותר.


Yet for the other Toldos (Melachos) we do not ascertain that they were done in the Mishkan. [As long as the Av was done, this suffices.] However, the Toldos of carrying are required by the Gemara in Shabbos (96b) to either be logically included or have been done in the building of the Mishkan. Bringing in, throwing, passing, and handing are all needed to have a source. This is because carrying is a weak Melachah. There is no need to discuss this further here.



תוס' ד"ה מראות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that "Maros" is the correct text, and why so few Nega'im are counted in our Mishnah.)

גרסינן ולא שתים דמראה לשון זכר הוא כדכתיב (שמות ג) את המראה הגדול הזה


Text: This ("Shnayim") is the correct text, as opposed to "Shtayim." This is because "Mareh" is a male word, as the Pasuk states, "This great Mareh (as opposed to "Marah")."

ותנן נמי במס' נגעים (פ"א משנה ד) ומייתי לה בהמזבח מקדש (זבחים דף פח: ושם) מראות נגעים רבי דוסא בן הרכינס אומר שלשים וששה עקביא בן מהללאל אומר שבעים ושנים


The following is also stated in Nega'im (1:4) and quoted in Zevachim (88b). Maros Nega'im, Rebbi Dosa ben Harkinas says there are thirty six, and Akavya ben Mehalalel says there are seventy two.

והא דקתני התם טובא


Implied Question: The Mishnah there says there are many Maros Nega'im. [How does the Mishnah there account for so many Nega'im when we say there are only four in our Mishnah?]

משום דחשיב נמי פתיכי


Answer#1: This is because it also counts mixed colors.

אי נמי כייל נגעי בתים ובגדים


Answer#2: Alternatively, this is because it counts Maros Nega'im of houses and clothes.




תוספות ד"ה מכדי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is relative that the end of Makos discussed a certain topic when there is no order to Mishnayos.)

אע"ג דקיימא לן (ע"ז דף ז.) דבתרי מסכתות אין סדר למשנה


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we hold (as stated in Avodah Zarah 7a) that in two Mesechtos there is no order to the Mishnah. [If this is true, why are we saying the Tana had to write in this style because he just finished Makos?]

ה"מ לענין מחלוקת ואחר כך סתם שרבי לא שנה לתלמידיו המסכתות על הסדר אבל אחר ששנאן סדרן על מכונן בהוייתן זו אחר זו


Answer: This is regarding a case where there is an argument and then a general Mishnah, as Rebbi did not teach his students the Mesechtos in order. However, after he taught them he organized them in order, one after the other.



תוס' ד"ה חייב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that while one is liable if he shaves with a razor, he is also liable if he shaves around his head with a scissors that is like a razor.)

נראה דאע"ג דעל הזקן אינו חייב אלא בתער כדאמר בפ' בתרא דמכות (דף כא.) דבעי' גילוח שיש בו השחתה בהקפת הראש חייב אף במספרים כעין תער


Opinion: It appears that even though one is only liable if he shaves his beard with a razor, as stated in Makos (21a) that "shaving that destroys" is required to transgress this prohibition, if one shaves the area around his head he is even liable if he does so with a scissors that is like a razor.

כדמוכח בפ' ג' מינים (נזיר דף מא: ושם) דקאמר אי כתיב ראשו ולא זקנו הוה אמינא תרתי משמע דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה ומשמע דהקפת כל הראש שמיה הקפה ואכתי בתער מנלן ולהכי כתיב זקנו


This is apparent from the Gemara in Nazir (41b). The Gemara says that if the Pasuk would have said (regarding shaving a leper) "his head" but not "his beard," I would think that a positive commandment should push aside a negative commandment. This implies that shaving around the entire head is called "Hakafah" (and even so the positive pushes aside the negative commandment). [The Gemara there continues] Even so, how do we know that one must do so with a razor? This is why the Pasuk says, "His beard."

ואי לא מחייב בהקפת הראש אלא בתער א"כ שפיר שמעינן מראשו דגילוח מצורע בתער מדאמר רחמנא דעשה דמצורע דחי לאו דהקפה


If he would only be liable for shaving around his head with a razor, we would understand from "his head" that a leper must be shaved with a razor. This is as the Torah states that the positive commandment of shaving a leper pushes aside the negative prohibition against shaving around the head. [The fact that the Gemara says that the use of a razor is derived from "his beard" implies that while one is only liable for shaving his beard with a razor, he is liable for shaving around his head even with a scissors that is like a razor.]

והא דקתני בתוספתא דמכות גבי ראש דאינו חייב עד שיקיפנו בתער


Implied Question: The Tosefta in Makos states regarding one's head that a person is only liable when he shaves around his head with a razor. [This is unlike what we have just stated, that is he is even liable for doing so with a scissors that is like a razor!]

איכא למימר מאי תער כעין תער כדאשכחן פרק ב' נזירים (שם דף נח:) דאמר רב מיקל אדם כל גופו בתער ומפרש התם כעין תער


Answer: When the Tosfeta says "razor" it means an implement that is like a razor. This is as we find in Nedarim (58b) that Rav says that a person can cut the hair of his body with a razor. The Gemara explains this means an implement that is like a razor.

וליכא למימר דהקפת הראש שרי במספרים ונקט בתוספתא דוקא תער לאפוקי מספרים


Implied Question: One cannot say that it is permitted to cut off the hair around one's head with a scissors, and that the Tosefta specifically stated "razor" in order to exclude a scissors.

ומ"מ מראשו לא שמעינן דגילוח מצורע בתער כיון דהקפת הראש אסור נמי במלקט ורהיטני


And that even so, from "his head" we do not see that the shaving of a leper must be done with a razor, being that shaving around the head is also forbidden with different types of planes (see Rashi in Kidushin 35b, DH "Melaket" "Rehitni"). [Why can't this be the intent of the Tosefta?]

דהא ודאי במלקט ורהיטני לא אפשר במצורע דגילוח כתיב ביה וא"כ מראשו ידעינן תער


Answer: Certainly, the different types of planes cannot be used for shaving a leper, as concerning him the Pasuk says, "Giluach" -- "shave (implying a razor)." If this is so, we really should learn that "his head" teaches that a razor must be used. [Accordingly, learning the Tosefta this way would create an argument between it and the Gemara in Nazir (41b).]

וכרבי אליעזר דאמר בפרק אלו הן הלוקין (מכות דף כא.) דמלקט ורהיטני נמי גילוח עבדי ליכא לאוקמי'


Implied Question: We cannot say that this (Tosefta) is according to Rebbi Eliezer who says in Makos (21a) that different types of planes are also considered to "shave." [This would reinstate the logic in (d) above. Why can't Rebbi Eliezer be the author of the Tosefta?]

דא"כ מזקנו נמי לא שמעינן תער דהא מלקט ורהיטני הוי גילוח שיש בו השחתה


Answer: If so, from "his beard" we also cannot derive that a razor must be used. This is because these different types of planes are considered to shave in a manner that destroys. [Accordingly, Rebbi Eliezer's opinion is against the Gemara in Nazir (41b) quoted above.]

ומיהו מתורת כהנים דקתני יש בראש מה שאין בזקן שהראש אסור במספרים כבתער אין ראיה דבנזיר איירי


Implied Question: However, from Toras Kohanim, where it says that there is a stringency regarding the head that does not apply to the beard, namely that a head cannot be shaved with a scissors that is like a razor, there is no proof that it is referring to a Nazir (and that the Tosefta also must hold that shaving around the head with a scissors is forbidden). [Why not?]

דקתני התם מה ת"ל ראשו לפי שנאמר תער לא יעבור על ראשו וכו' ואהא מסיק מה ת"ל ראשו מה ת"ל זקנו מפני שיש בראש מה שאין בזקן כו'


Answer: It says there, "What is the Pasuk "his head" teaching us?" This is because it says, "A razor should not pass over his head etc." The Toras Kohanim concludes (regarding a leper, see Mayan ha'Chachmah) "What does "his head" and "his beard" teach us? This is because there are laws regarding his head that do not apply to his beard etc.