1)

TOSFOS DH IY HACHI

תוספות ד"ה אי הכי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask this question on Rebbi Shimon directly.)

הקשה הר"י אמאי קאמר א"ה דאמלתי' דר"ש בן אלעזר גופיה היה יכול להקשות תיפוק ליה משום לפני עור

(a)

Question: The Ri asks, why does the Gemara now ask, "If so, etc.?" It could have asked on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's law itself, "Why wouldn't we know this is forbidden due to Lifnei Iver?"

ופי' הר"ר אלחנן בשלמא אי אמרת דכותי נקט לרבותא וה"ה עובד כוכבים ניחא דנקט טעמא דנקראת על שמו דשייך בתרוייהו אלא אי אמרת דנקט כותי דוקא א"כ תיפוק ליה משום לפני עור

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Elchanan answers that it would be understandable if we would say that Rebbi Shimon says a case of a Kusi in order to include a Nochri. He therefore said the reason that it is considered as if the Jew's name is on the work, as this will even forbid a Nochri. However, if you say that he specifically said Kusi, why not suffice with the reason of Lifnei Iver?

2)

TOSFOS DH TEIPUK

תוספות ד"ה תיפוק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that Lifnei Iver also applies to a Rabbinic law.)

אליבא דרשב"א פריך דאית ליה כותים גרי אמת הן בפ"ק דחולין (דף ו.) גבי ההיא דר"ש דשדריה לר"מ למזבן חמרא מבי כותאי

(a)

Observation: This question is according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who is cited in Chulin (6a) as holding that Kusim are real converts. The Gemara there says that Rebbi Shimon was sent by Rebbi Meir to buy wine from the Kusim (indicating he obviously held they were true converts at this point in time).

ומכאן יש להביא ראיה למה שפירש ר"ת דשייך למימר לפני עור אף במידי דלית ביה איסורא אלא דרבנן דהא מלאכה דחול המועד אינה אסורה אלא מדרבנן כדפירש ר"ת (במו"ק דף ב)

(b)

Proof#1: We can bring proof from here to Rabeinu Tam's explanation that Lifnei Iver even applies to a Rabbinic prohibition. This is apparent from our Gemara, as doing work on Chol ha'Moed is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law, as explained by Rabeinu Tam (see Tosfos in Chagigah 18a, DH "Cholo").

וראיה נמי מדלעיל (דף טו:) דאסור למכור לישראל החשוד למכור לעובד כוכבים אע"ג דליכא איסורא אלא דרבנן

(c)

Proof#2: There is also proof from the Gemara earlier (15b) which stated that it is forbidden to sell (items one is not allowed to sell to a Nochri) to a Jew who is suspected of selling these items to a Nochri (due to Lifnei Iver), even though this is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law.

אבל הר"ר אלחנן הקשה לפר"ת שפירש דמלאכה דחול המועד אינה אסורה מן התורה מדאמר בפ' מי שהפך (מ"ק דף יא:) פתח באבל וסיים בחול המועד לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא ימי אבלו דאסור דרבנן אלא אפילו חול המועד דאסור דאורייתא כו'

(d)

Question: However, Rabeinu Elchanan asked that according to Rabeinu Tam who explains that work on Chol ha'Moed is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law because the Gemara in Moed Katan (11b) asks, "Does it make sense that the Mishnah starts off with a case of mourning and finishes with Chol ha'Moed?" The Gemara answers, "This was said in a manner of, "not only." Not only is this true regarding one's days of mourning when one is prohibited from doing work according to Rabbinic law, but it is also true regarding Chol ha'Moed when one is forbidden from doing work according to Torah law." (This clearly shows that the prohibition against working on Chol ha'Moed is a Torah prohibition!)

ומפר"ת דקרי ליה דאורייתא לפי שיש לה אסמכתא מן התורה בפ"ק דחגיגה (דף יח.) לאפוקי אבל שאין לו אסמכתא אלא מדברי קבלה דכתיב והפכתי חגיכם לאבל

(e)

Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam answers that this is called "Torah law" because there is an Asmachta from the Torah that one should not do work (see Chagigah 18a). This is as opposed to the laws against one working while mourning, which only has an Asmachta from Divrei Kabalah (words of the prophets). This is as the Pasuk says, "And I will turn your festivals into mourning."

א"נ חול המועד יש לו עיקר מן התורה דאיכא למיגזר אטו י"ט

(f)

Answer#2: Alternatively, Chol ha'Moed has a source in the Torah, as we can decree that it is forbidden due to Yom Tov.

3)

TOSFOS DH CHADA

תוספות ד"ה חדא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this can also lead to Lifnei Iver in a partnership between a Kusi and a Jew.)

נראה דמהאי טעמא נמי להיות אסור כשקבל שדה בשותפות

(a)

Opinion: It appears that for this reason (Lifnei Iver) it can also be forbidden for a person to accept a partnership with a Kusi in a field (as this empowers the Kusi to put in his share of work on Shabbos, as opposed to the Jew who only works during the week, see Avodah Berurah).

4)

TOSFOS DH LO YOMAR

תוספות ד"ה לא יאמר

(SUMMARY: Rabeinu Tam and the Ri argue regarding a Jew who collects an oven, and partial use of the oven, as payment for a loan.)

מעשה כך היה בימי רבינו תם שגבה ישראל אחד בחובו תנור אחד מעובד כוכבים והיה לו לאופה המסיק התנור חלקו בתנור והיה לו ליהודי ליטול כך וכך ימים בחלקו ולאופה כמו כן כך וכך ולא התנו מתחלה זה לזה טול אתה חלקך בשבת ואני חלקי בחול

(a)

Observation: There was once an incident in the days of Rabeinu Tam where a Jew collected an oven as payment for a debt owed to him by a Nochri. The baker who used to light the fire of the oven used to have the right to a certain amount of days, and the Jew was supposed to take a similar amount of days as payment. They did not originally make any condition that the Nochri baker should take his day on Shabbos and instead the Jew will take a day during the week.

והיה ר"י ר"ל דמותר דלא דמי לשדה דהכא דגבי שדה חלק הישראל משביח אף בחול במה שהעובד כוכבים טורח בו בשבת אבל בתנור אינו משביח כלל במה שהעובד כוכבים עושה בו בשבת וזה בחול ואף בלא התנו מתחלה

(b)

Opinion#1: The Ri understood that this is permitted. It is unlike a case of a field, as regarding a field the portion of the Jew improves during the week due to the work that the Nochri did to it on Shabbos. However, there is no improvement in the oven at all when the Nochri uses it on Shabbos, and the Jew uses it during the week. It is therefore permitted even if they did not make a condition (this is the text of the Avodah Berurah quoting the Be'aros ha'Mayim).

ולא הודה ר"ת לזה ונראה לו דאין לחלק בין תנור לשדה דאע"פ שאינו משביח במלאכה בשבת מ"מ הוי כאילו מעמיד פועל בידים

(c)

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam did not admit to this. It appears to him that there is no reason to differentiate between an oven and a field. Even though the oven does not improve because it is being used on Shabbos, it is as if he physically set up a worker to work on Shabbos.

ונראה להר"ר אלחנן דבתנור אפי' התנו מתחלה לא יועיל כיון שכל התנור של ישראל הוא וה"ל כמשכיר תנורו בשבת ואומר לעובד כוכבים טול שכר תנורי בשבת כשתסיקנו לי בחול

(d)

Opinion#3: Rabeinu Elchanan understands that regarding an oven, even if they made a condition originally (that the Jew will take an extra weekday and the Nochri will take Shabbos) it should not help. Being that the entire oven belongs to a Jew, it is like a Jew renting an oven on Shabbos, and saying to theNochri renter that he should take the wages of Shabbos in exchange for the Nochri lighting the oven during the week.

ולא דמי לישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה בשותפות

(e)

Implied Question: This is incomparable to the case where a Jew and Nochri buy a field together. (Why?)

שיש לעובד כוכבים חלק בגוף הקרקע

(f)

Answer: In that case, the Nochri owns part of the land (and is therefore just trying to improve his land).

וגם ר"י חזר בו והביא ראיה לדברי ר"ת דאין חילוק בין תנור לשדה

(g)

Proof: The Ri retracted his opinion, and brought proof to Rabeinu Tam's opinion that there is no difference between an oven and a field.

דהא מרחץ כתנור דמי ובתוספתא דמסכת דמאי [פ"ו] תניא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה ומרחץ בשותפות לא יאמר לו ישראל לעובד כוכבים כו' קצרו של דבר בין כרם בין שדה בין מרחץ או תנור אם לקחו ישראל ועובד כוכבים בשותפות אסור לומר טול אתה חלקך כו' אלא אם כן התנו מתחלה קודם שלקחוהו שאין לישראל בשבת שום חלק

1.

Proof (cont.): This is evident from the fact that a bathhouse is like an oven. The Tosefta in Dmai (ch. 6) says that if a Jew and Nochri bought a field and bathhouse as partners, the Jew should not tell the Nochri, "Take etc." In short, whether they buy a vineyard, field, bathhouse, or oven together, the Jew should not tell the Nochri, "Take your share etc." unless they made a condition before they bought this together that the Jew has no portion in this investment on Shabbos.

וגם ר"ת באותו מעשה דתנור צוה לקבל החוב מן העובד כוכבים ולחזור ולהלוות ולהתנות מתחלה

(h)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam instructed in the incident regarding the oven that the Jew should accept the debt (i.e. in cash) from the Nochri, and then to go back and lend him the money with a condition (that he will take the oven as payment if he can take a weekday, and the Nochri will take Shabbos as one of the days).

מיהו היכא שלקחו הישראל במשכון נראה שא"צ להתנות כלום כיון שהוא ברשות העובד כוכבים ושכר התנור הוא לישראל מרבית שהעובד כוכבים נותן לו ואין הישראל קונה חלק בתנור דדוקא נקט לקחו העתק מלשון רבינו יהודה

1.

Opinion (cont.): However, if the Jew took the oven as collateral, it would seem that he does not have to make a condition, being that the oven still belongs to the Nochri, and the wages from the oven are being given to the Jew as interest on the loan. In this case, the Jew does not own any part of the oven. A condition is only required in a case where the Jew is considered to have bought the oven. This is a copy from the text written by Rabeinu Yehudah.

5)

TOSFOS DH TA SHEMA

תוספות ד"ה ת"ש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara only made a deduction from the second part of the Beraisa.)

וא"ת לידוק מרישא

(a)

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara make the opposite deduction from the first case of the Beraisa? (The deduction being that the Jew can take a regular day while the Nochri takes Shabbos, if nothing is stated.)

וי"ל דאיכא למימר דה"ה סתמא אלא משום דבעי למיתני סיפא ואם התנו מתחלה מותר אף על פי שהתנה לו כך בפירוש

(b)

Answer: It is possible to answer that one cannot assume the first part of the Beraisa implies that if nothing was stated, the Jew can take a regular day while the Nochri takes Shabbos. (If you ask, if this is indeed forbidden, why would the Beraisa bother to state that if he explicitly makes this condition (after they make the purchase) it is forbidden? It is even forbidden if the condition is not explicit!) The Beraisa wanted to teach that even if they originally made a condition (before the purchase), this is permitted (despite the fact that they are making an explicit condition that the Jew will take a weekday in exchange for the Nochri taking Shabbos). (This is the way the Maharsha explains Tosfos.)

6)

TOSFOS DH V'IM

תוספות ד"ה ואם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not entertain that making a condition originally is forbidden.)

וא"ת לימא דה"ק אם באו לחשבון אסור אפי' התנו מתחלה

(a)

Question: Why don't we say that if they make an understanding that includes Shabbos this should be forbidden, even if they made this condition before making the purchase?

וי"ל דס"ל דודאי אם התנו מתחילה מותר בכל ענין

(b)

Answer: The Gemara understands that certainly if they made a condition originally, they are permitted to do so.

PEREK 'AIN MA'AMIDIN'
7)

TOSFOS DH AIN MA'AMIDIN

תוספות ד"ה אין מעמידין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the common practice of leaving animals with Nochri shepherds, despite the fact that this seems to contradict the Mishnah and Gemara.)

ותניא בגמ' אין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהם

(a)

Observation: The Gemara says that we cannot even give an animal over to a Nochri shepherd.

ויש ליתן טעם על מה אנו סומכין לייחד בהמותינו עמהם ואף אנו מוסרין בהמותינו לרועה שלהם

(b)

Implied Question: We must give a reason why we allow our animals to be secluded with Nochrim, and why we even give them to Nochri shepherds. (Why is this standard practice when the Mishnah and Gemara imply it is forbidden?)

ואין לומר כדאמר רב לעיל בפ"ק (דף יד:) מקום שהתירו למכור התירו ליחד דהא לא קם האי מילתא דאף רב הדר ביה

1.

Implied Question (cont.): One cannot say as Rav stated earlier (14b) that in a place where they permitted selling animals to Nochrim, they also allowed their animals be secluded with Nochrim. This position of Rav was not established, and even Rav retracted his statement.

אלא אומר ר"ת דסמכינן אהא דמשני ר' פדת בגמ' (דף כג.) דמוקי מתני' כר"א דחייש לרביעה וברייתא דלוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן דלא חיישי לרביעה כרבנן ואנן קיימין כרבנן

(c)

Answer: Rather, Rabeinu Tam explains, we rely on the answer of Rebbi Pedas (23a) who establishes that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Eliezer who suspects that Nochrim will have relations with animals. The Beraisa that states that we take an animal for Korban from Nochrim, indicating that we do not suspect they had relations with the animal, is according to the Rabbanan. We hold like the Rabbanan.

ואע"ג דרבינא שהיה סוף הוראה פליג עליה ושני שנויא אחרינא מ"מ נראין דברי ר' פדת עיקר

(d)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Ravina, who is considered the last word in the Gemara regarding Halachah, argues on Rebbi Pedas and gives a different answer. Even so, Rebbi Pedas answer seems to be the main answer. (How can this be when Ravina argues?)

חדא מדהקדים דברי רבינא לדבריו דהא רבי פדת קודם לרבינא ימים רבים שהיה בנו של ר"א כדאמרינן בפ"ק דברכות (דף יא:) וכן אורי לי' ר"א לר' פדת בריה

(e)

Answer#1: Firstly, being that Ravina's answer is before the answer of Rebbi Pedas in the Gemara, the indication is that the answer of Rebbi Pedas is the main answer. Rebbi Pedas lived a long time before Ravina, as he was the son of Rebbi Eliezer, as stated in Berachos (11b), "Rebbi Eliezer instructed Rebbi Pedas, his son."

וגם היה חברו של ר' זירא כדאמר בפ"ק דנדה (דף ח.) א"ר זירא לר' פדת חזי דמינך ומאבוך קשריתו קטפא לעלמא ואותו ר"א אביו הי' תלמידו של ר' יוחנן

1.

Answer#1 (cont.): We also see that Rebbi Pedas was a contemporary of Rebbi Zeira, as stated in Nidah (8a) that Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Pedas, "I see that between you and your father the Katfra fruit is being permitted." Rebbi Eliezer, the father of Rebbi Pedas, was a student of Rebbi Yochanan (who was a contemporary of Rav who was a Tana, see Kesuvos 8a and Tosfos there DH "Rav").

ועוד דבשל סופרים קי"ל דהלך אחר המיקל

(f)

Answer#2: Additionally, regarding Rabbinic matters we say that one should follow the lenient opinion.

ואע"ג דסתם מתני' דאין מעמידין מתוקמא כר"א מ"מ לית הלכתא כוותיה

(g)

Implied Question: Even though the Stam Mishnah here (22a) is according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, the law does not follow him. (Doesn't the law usually follow a Stam Mishnah?)

כיון שיש מחלוקת במסכת פרה (פ"ב מ"א) ובתרי מסכתי לכ"ע אין סדר

(h)

Answer: There is an argument regarding this topic in Parah (2:1). Everyone agrees that there is no specific order of Mishnayos in two different Mesechtos (and we know that if there is a Stam Mishnah and then an argument regarding that topic, the law does not necessarily follow the Stam Mishnah, see 7a).

22b----------------------------------------22b

8)

TOSFOS DH U'RIMIN'HI

תוספות ד"ה ורמינהי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not set up its discussion in the same manner as it did earlier on 14b.)

תימה אדמותיב מברייתא אמתני' לירמי מתני' אהדדי אין מעמידין ורמינהי מקום שנהגו למכור מוכרין אלמא לא חיישינן לרביעה ולשני נמי כדמשני הכא

(a)

Question#1: This is difficult. Instead of asking from the Beraisa on our Mishnah, we should ask a contradiction in Mishnayos, as one Mishnah says, "We do not give our animals etc." and the other says, "In a place where the custom is to sell, we sell!" This latter Mishnah implies that we clearly do not suspect the Nochrim will have relations with the animals. We could even give the same answer that the Gemara gives there for our Gemara!

ועוד קשה אמאי לא שני הכא שינויא קמא דרב דלעיל (דף יד:) מקום שהתירו למכור כו'

(b)

Question#2: There is another difficulty. Why doesn't our Gemara give the first answer of Rav earlier (14b), that in a place where they permitted selling (they permitted seclusion, as opposed to a place that forbade seclusion) etc.? (The Maharam explains that both of these questions boil down to one essential question: Why doesn't the Gemara here set up the discussion about this topic in the same manner as it did earlier on 14b?)

וי"ל דההיא רומיא דמתני' כבר מרמה לה בפ"ק (שם) ושניה שפיר ואע"ג דהכא נמי נחית לשנויי שנויא קמא דרב מקום שהתירו ליקח מהם להקריב דלא שני הכא דתידוק דהכא הא במקום שאסרו למכור אסור ליקח אלמא איכא דוכתא דחשידי

(c)

Answer#1: The Gemara already asked this question in the first Perek (14b) and answered it successfully. Even though our Gemara could have also given Rav's first answer, that where they permitted selling animals to Nochrim they permitted buying animals from Nochrim, it did not give this answer due to its implication (and this is also why it asked the question differently instead of setting up the discussion the same way). This answer implies that in a place where they prohibited selling to Nochrim, it is forbidden to buy from Nochrim, implying that there are places where Nochrim are suspected.

ותקשי א"כ כל הנך קראי דמותבי מינייהו רבנן לר"א לקמן בשמעתין דמשמע בהו שמותר ליקח מן העובדי כוכבים בהמה לקרבן ונצטרך להעמידם במקום שנהגו למכור מפני שאינם חשודים על הרביעה

1.

Answer#1 (cont.): If this implication is true, one would then ask all of the questions that the Rabbanan ask on Rebbi Elazar later in the Gemara (24ab) that imply that one can buy animals from Nochrim to offer as a Korbanos. We would have to say that all of these Pesukim are referring to a place where they has a custom to sell animals to Nochrim, because they are not suspected to have relations with the animals.

ואין זה יכול להיות דהא מייתי קראי דמצרים וכנען ופלשתים דקי"ל שהן חשודים על הרביעה וגם כל צאן קדר שהם ערביים הם חשודים על הרביעה כדמשמע בסמוך ערבי אחד לקח ירך מן השוק כו'

2.

Answer#1 (cont.): This cannot be, as many of these Pesukim deal with nations such as Egypt, Canaan, and the Philistines who were known to be suspected of having relations with their animals, as is implied later in the Gemara where it says, "An arab bought a thigh in the market etc."

ועוד תקשי אטו ניקום ונימא להו לקראי כי כתביהו במקום שנהגו למכור כתביהו

3.

Answer#1 (cont.): Additionally, one would ask, should we establish the Pesukim as being written in a place where the custom was to sell them animals?!

ונראה דמהאי טעמא הדר ביה רב לעיל מהאי שנויא דמקום שנהגו למכור כו' לפי שלא היה יכול להעמידו כאן

4.

Answer#1 (cont.): It appears that for this very reason Rav retracted his earlier answer that in a place where the custom is to sell etc., as he could not establish it as being correct in our Gemara.

ועוי"ל דידע שפיר שינויא דעובד כוכבים חס על בהמתו ומ"מ פריך מהכא דלוקחין דס"ד דאיכא למיחש לרביעה כיון שבא למכרה ומשני דלעולם חייש שפעמים אינו יכול למכרה או נמלך

(d)

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that our Gemara knew the answer that a Nochri has pity on his animal. Even so, it asked from the Beraisa that one can buy an animal from Nochrim. One would think that we should suspect his having relations with the animal, being that he is selling it! The Gemara answers that a Nochri always refrains from having relations with his animal, as he sometimes cannot find a buyer, or he changes his mind about selling it. (According to this answer, the Maharam explains, the Gemara is actually trying to ask a better question than it did earlier, as opposed to the first answer where it merely records the same discussion in an adjusted manner in order that we should not be mislead.)

וניחא נמי לרבינא ולרבי פדת דבסמוך

1.

Answer#2 (cont.): This is also understandable according to Ravina and Rebbi Pedas (23a) later (as they said their answers because one may suspect that the Nochri will indeed have relations with an animal before he sells it).

וא"ת כיון דמוקמינן היתר קרבן בכל מקום אף במקום שנהגו שלא למכור תיקשי לן מכל מקום כיון דמה שאין אנו מעמידין משום חשש רביעה הוא בקרבן איך התירו

(e)

Question: Being that we see that one is allowed to buy an animal to use for a Korban from Nochrim in any place, even in a place where they had a custom not to sell animals to Nochrim, we should ask that if we do not give animals to shepherds due to a concern they might have relations with the animal, how indeed can we buy animals from them to use as Korbanos?

וי"ל דמקום שנהגו שלא למכור מנהגא הוא דאיכא הא איסורא ליכא ולענין קרבן אפילו מנהגא ליכא שאם היו נוהגין לימנע מליקח מהם בהמה לקרבן אין לדבר סוף דא"א שלא יתערבו בהמות של מקום שנהגו שלא למכור עם בהמות שנהגו למכור ע"י משא ומתן וכל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי

(f)

Answer: It is possible to answer that in a place where they had a custom not to sell animals to Nochrim, they only had such a custom, but did not have such a prohibition. Regarding (purchasing animals to be used for) a Korban, they did not even have a custom. If they had a custom to refrain purchasing animals for Korbanos from Nochrim, this decree would never end. It would be impossible to ascertain that animals from a place where we do not sell them animals did not mingle with animals from a place where we do sell them animals through some sort of business deal. Any standard setting (which has a possibly doubtful status) is considered to have a fifty-fifty status, and is therefore forbidden (see Yoma 84b where this is derived from a Pasuk, although the Avodah Berurah says that regarding an animal in our case, it would only apply according to Rabbinic law).

ומבהמות הנולדים מביתו של ישראל אין דיי ליקח לקרבן משום דשכיחי מומי דפסלי אפי' בדוקין שבעין

1.

Answer (cont.): It is not enough to only buy animals born and raised by Jews, as there are many common blemishes that make animals invalid, such as cataracts.

9)

TOSFOS DH MUKTZAH

תוספות ד"ה מוקצה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defines Muktzah.)

פירוש שיחדו לתקרובת עבודת כוכבים ומסרו לכומרים והאכילוהו כרשיני עבודת כוכבים אבל יחוד גרידא אינו כלום דאין הקדש לעבודת כוכבים (לקמן מד:) כדמשמע (בפ"ב דתרומה) [צ"ל דתמורה בפ"ו (דף כט.)]

(a)

Explanation: This means that they set it aside to be a sacrifice for idolatry. They then gave it to the priests, who fed it animal food of idolatry. However, just setting it aside for idolatry (without giving over to the priests etc.) is nothing, as there is no law of Hekdesh when it comes to idolatry. This is as stated later (44b) and in Temurah (29a).

10)

TOSFOS DH EE EESA

תוספות ד"ה אי איתא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this reasoning is extra, as we generally do not assume an animal of a Nochri is a sacrifice or an idol.)

לרווחא דמילתא נקטיה כלומר אפילו במקום דשכיחי דמקצו ופלחו אין לחוש מדמזבין ליה דבלאו האי טעמא בסתמא לא חיישינן לדלמא מקצו ופלחו אסרינן למכור אלא משום חשש רביעה ולא משום חשש המוקצה ונעבד

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara is saying this as an extra reason. It means to say that even in a place where they often set aside animals for sacrifices and serve animals, there is no reason to suspect this is the case with an animal that they are selling. Even without them selling it, we would not suspect that a regular animal belonging to a Nochri is set aside to be a sacrifice or served as an idol. This is apparent from the fact that we forbid selling animals to them because we suspect they will have relations with it, not because we suspect they will set it aside as a sacrifice or worship it.

11)

TOSFOS DH RAGLA

תוספות ד"ה רגלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding the text of our Gemara, and the explanation of a Gemara in Shabbos.)

בקונטרס גריס רגלא ברי"ש לשון רגיל כמו לא רגל על לשונו (תהלים טו)

(a)

Text#1: Rashi has the text of "Rigla" with a Reish, meaning common Lashon Hara, as in "he did not commonly speak (i.e. Lashon Hara) with his tongue" (Tehilim 15:3).

ור"ת גרס כפירוש הערוך דגלא בדלי"ת לשון שקרן שכן מתרגם (משלי טז) במשפט לא ימעל פיו לא ידגל פומיה וה"ק שקרן בחברו מכיר

(b)

Text#2: Rabeinu Tam's text is like that of the Aruch, which is "Digla" with a Daled. This means a liar, as the Targum explains the Pasuk, "With judgment he will not usurp his mouth," (Mishlei 16:10) to mean "Lo Yidgal Pumei" - "he will not cause his mouth to lie." The Gemara means that a liar knows his friend.

וכן ההוא דפ' במה אשה (שבת סג.) שני תלמידי חכמים המדגילין זה לזה בהלכה הקב"ה אוהבן שנאמר ודגלו עלי אהבה ומפר"ת המכחישין זה לזה ואינם עומדים על העיקר אפי' הכי הקב"ה אוהבן ולהכי קאמר והוא דידעי צורתא דשמעתא ולית להו רבה למגמר מנייהו

1.

Text#2 (cont.): Similarly, the Gemara in Shabbos (63a) says that two Talmidei Chachamim who are "Madgil" each other in Halachah are loved by Hash-m. This is as the Pasuk says, "v'Diglo Alay Ahavah." Rabeinu Tam explains that this means they contradict each other, and do not understand the main point. Even so, Hash-m loves them. This is why the Gemara there says, "This is if they know the basic Gemara, and they do not have a teacher from whom they can learn."

ובמדרש נמי משמע ודגלו לשון מעילתו דקאמר מנין לקורא בתורה שקרא לאהרן הרן שיוצא פי' שאע"פ שלא יקרא האלף שנאמר ודגלו עלי אהבה

2.

Text#2 (cont.): The Medrash also implies that "v'Diglo" implies usurping. This is as the Medrash states, "How do we know that if someone is reading the Torah, and he reads, "Aharon" as "Haran" that he fulfills his obligation?" This means that even though he does not read the Alef of Aharon, he fulfills his obligation. "This is as the Pasuk states, "v'Diglo Alay Ahavah."

אבל רש"י פירש מדגילין לשון דגל שמקהילים קהלות ברבים

(c)

Explanation: However, Rashi in Shabbos (ibid.) explains that this is from the root of the word "a flag," meaning that they gather people in public to learn Torah.

וקשיא דאם כן מה ראיה צריך פשיטא שנאהבים לפני המקום

(d)

Question: This explanation is difficult. Why would we need proof (i.e. have to bring a Pasuk) to say that these people are loved by Hash-m?

12)

TOSFOS DH D'AMAR MAR

תוספות ד"ה דאמר מר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that he is unsure of the source for the Gemara's comment that Nochrim are more fond of Jewish animals than their wives.)

לא נודע לר"י מהיכן נפקא עיקר דבר זה

(a)

Implied Question: The Ri is unsure how the Gemara knows this (that Nochrim are more fond of Jewish animals than their wives). (What is the source for this remark?)

13)

TOSFOS DH OVDEI

תוספות ד"ה עובדי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the spiritual filthiness of converts stopped at Har Sinai.)

ונראה דגריס נמי דפסקה זוהמתן היינו משום דאף על גב דאינהו לא הוו מזלייהו הוו

(a)

Text: It appears that the text is that, "converts also had their (spiritual) filthiness stopped," meaning that even though they were not at Har Sinai, their Mazal was at Har Sinai. [This is the way the Maharam understands Tosfos. According to him, the correct text in Tosfos is "v'Nireh d'Garis Geirim etc." See Avodah Berurah for explanations of Tosfos.]

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF