1)

TOSFOS DH VE'NOTEIL D'MEI YEINO MITOCH DUVSHANO SHEL CHAVERO (cont. from previous Amud)

úåñ' ã"ä åðåèì ãîé ééðå îúåê ãåáùðå ùì çáéøå

(Summary: Tosfos resolves this Sugya with the Sugya in the last Perek, and elaborates.)

)ëéåï ãàå÷îä 'ëùò÷ì áéú äáã ëøåê òìéä' ùéëåì ìäöéì ò"é äãç÷( åðøàä ìø"é, ãääéà ãì÷îï îééøé ùáòì äééï ùôê àú ééðå îãòúå, ùéëåì ìåîø ìå áòì äãáù 'ìîä ùôëú? àðé äééúé ãåç÷ åîöéì ... '

(a)

Authentic Answer: The Ri explains that the case later (where the owner of the wine only receives his wages) speaks where the owner of the wine poured out his wine on his own initiative, in which case the owner of the honey can say to him 'Why did you do that? I would have made the efort and saved my honey!' ...

àáì äëà îééøé ùáà áòì äãáù ìùôåê àú äééï, ùúðàé á"ã äåà ùàéï áòì äééï éëåì ìòëá, àìà ùåôê ééðå ùì çáéøå áò"ë ùì çáéøå, àìà ùðåúï ìå ãîé ééðå îúåê ãåáùðå.

1.

Authentic Answer (cont.): ... whereas in our case, it speaks where the owner of the honey is coming to pour out the wine, and it is a 'T'nai Beis-Din that the owner of the wine cannot stop him from doing so, only he is obligated to pay the value of the wine out of his honey.

åäùúà äåé ëòéï ääéà ã'ðçéì ùì ãáåøéí' ,ù÷ööå áò"ë ìäöéì ðçéìå.

2.

Authentic Answer (cont.): And that is similar to the case of 'the swarm of bees', where he is permitted to cut off the branch to save his bees.

åëòéï æä ðîé ääéà ã'ôùúï. '

3.

Authentic Answer (concl.): And it is also similar to the case of 'the flax'.

åäàé ãîùðé 'ëéçéãàä ìà ÷àîø' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara answers that he is not speaking about individual opinions (seeing as the current Beraisa conforms to the Mishnah later, as Tosfos just explained) ...

îùåí ãîñúîà ëé äéëé ãôìéâé áääéà ã'ðçéì' ,ëãúðï ì÷îï áôø÷ áúøà (ãó ÷éã.), ôìéâé ðîé áàçøéðé...

(c)

Answer: ... it is because we can assume that just as the Chachamim argue in the case of 'the swarm of bees', as we see in the Mishnah later (in the last Perek, Daf 114a), so too, will they argue in the other cases ...

ãçã èòîà äåà.

1.

Reason: ... because the reason for all the rulings is one and the same.

2)

TOSFOS DH K'DEI SHE'LO YALINU SHELOSHAH YAMIM BE'LO TORAH

úåñ' ã"ä ëãé ùìà éìéðå â' éîéí áìà úåøä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why Chazal fixed specifically Monday and Thursday for Leining and elaborates.)

åà"ú, î"ù ùúé÷ðå ùðé åçîéùé?

(a)

Question: Why did they fix specifically Monday and Thursday?

åé"ì, îùåí ãàîø áîãøù -îùä øáéðå ò"ä òìä áçîéùé ì÷áì ìåçåú äàçøåðåú åéøã áùðé, åðúøöä ìå äî÷åí ...

(b)

Answer: Because the Midrash (Tanchuma [See Mesores ha'Shas]) states that Moshe Rabeinu a.h. ascended the Mountain on a Thursday to receive the second set of Luchos, and he descended on a Monday, when Hash-m made up with him ...

åìôé ùäéä òú øöåï áàåúä òìééä åéøéãä, ÷áòå áùðé åçîéùé...

1.

Answer (cont.): ... and since that ascent and descent signified a time of goodwill, they fixed Monday and Thursday

åìëê ðîé ðäâå ìäúòðåú áá' åä'.

2.

Answer (concl.): And it is for the same reason that they chose Monday and Thursday as fast-days.

åàó ò"ô ùòìä áäùëîä...

(c)

Implied Question: Even though he ascended the Mountain early in the morning ...

ëãëúéá (ùîåú ìã) "åòìéú áá÷ø," ùãåîä ùëì äòìéåú äéå áá÷ø åìà áìéìä, åìà úîöà ë"à î' éåí çñéøéí ìéìä àçã...

(d)

Implied Question: ... as the Torah writes in Sh'mos (34) 'And you shall ascend in the morning" - and all subsequent ascensions presumably, took place in the morning and not at night-time, in which case one will find that there are only forty days minus one night ...

àéï ìä÷ôéã áëê.

1.

Answer: One need not wory about that.

åìôé ñãø òåìí ðîé ëï äåà, ãúðéà áñãø òåìí' - ðîöà òìä áæ' áñéåï åéøã áé"æ áúîåæ åùáø äìåçåú, åáé"ç áúîåæ òìä åá÷ù øçîéí òìéäí, ùðàîø "åàúðôì ìôðé ä' î' éåí'' ...

(e)

Support: And that is also how it comes out according to the Seider Olam (Perek 6) which says that 'He ascended the Mountain on the seventh of Sivan and descended on the seventeenth of Tamuz, when he smashed the Luchos; He went up again on the eighteenth and Davened on their behalf, as the Pasuk states "And I fell before Hash-m for forty days" ...

åáë"è áàá ðúøöä äî÷åí åéøã îùä ìôñåì äìåçåú, åòìä òåã î' éåí îì' áàá òã é' áúùøé, åðúøöä äî÷åí; åéøã îùä áé' áúùøé åäìåçåú áéãå...

1.

Support (cont.): ... On the twenty-ninth of Av, when Hash-m made up with him, he descended once more to carve out the (second) Luchos; after which he ascended again for another forty days from the thirtieth of Av until the tenth of Tishri, when Hash-m made up with him (completely). That is when Moshe descended, holding the Luchos.

áàåúå éåí ðúøöä äî÷åí ìéùøàì, ùðàîø "åéàîø ä' ñìçúé ëãáøê" .ìôéëê ñìéçä åëôøä äåà ìãåøåú.'

2.

Support (cont.): ... On that day Hash-m forgave Yisrael, as the Pasuk writes "And Hash-m said 'I have forgiven you like your words' ".That is why it is (a day of) forgiveness and atonement for all generations'.

ðîöà ãî' éåí àçøåðéí çñéøéí ìéìä, ùäøé áéåí ì' áàá òìä áäùëîä åéøã áéåí äëôåøéí...

3.

Support (concl.): It transpires that the forty latter days are missing a night, seeing as he ascended on the thirtieth of Av early in the morning and descended on Yom Kipur ...

àí ìà ùúàîø ãòáøåä ìàìåì.

(f)

Alternative: ... unless we say that they declared Ellul a full month.

åäà ãëúéá áôøùú ò÷á "åàðëé òîãúé áäø ëéîéí äøàùåðéí ùäï î' éåí åî' ìéìä" ...

(g)

Implied Question: And when the Pasuk writes in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 10) "And I stood on the Mountain like the first (set of) days - forty days and forty nights" ...

äëé ÷àîø " -ëéîéí äøàùåðéí" ' ,åìà ëìéìåú, ãàçøåðåú' äéå çñéøéí ìéìä àçã.

1.

Answer: ... it means "like the first days", but not like the nights, since the latter nights were missing one.

åàó òì âá ãàéöèøéê "ëéîéí äøàùåðéí" ìåîø 'îä äøàùåðéí áøöåï, àó äàçøåðéí áøöåï, àáì äàîöòééí áëòñ' ...

(h)

Question: Even though we need "like the first days" to teach us that 'just as the first days were accompanied by goodwill, so too, the latter ones - but during the middle ones Hash-m was angry'.

äå"î ìîéëúá 'ëøàùåðéí' åëúéá "ëéîéí... "ìåîø "ëéîéí, " 'åìà ëìéìåú' ...

1.

Answer: The Torah could have written "like the first ones", but it added the word "days", to teach us "days" 'and not nights'.

åàé ìäê ãøùä ìçåãà àúà, ä"ì ìîéëúá "åàðëé òîãúé áäø î' éåí" åúå ìà.

2.

Answer (cont.): On the other hand, had it wanted to convey the latter D'rashah exclusively, it ought to have written "And I stood on the Mountain for forty days" and no more.

åà"ú, åäà áñåó ëé úùà ëúéá "åéäé ùí òí ä' î' éåí åî' ìéìä, " åáìåçåú àçøåðåú ëúéá?

(i)

Question: But at the end of Ki Sissa (34:28) the Torah writes "And he was with Hash-m forty days and forty nights" - in connection with the second Luchos ...

åé"ì, ãà'éîéí ùäúðôì' ÷àé...

(j)

Answer: ... that Pasuk refers to the (middle) days when he fell before Hash-m ...

åìôé ùìà ôé' îòùä, ã"àåìé àëôøä áòã çèàúëí" ëîä òîã îùä áúôìä, îôøù ìä äëà.

1.

Answer (cont.): lnd it inserts it here, because it did not explain earlier, when it said "perhaps I will atone for your sin", how long he stood in prayer.

åäà ãëúéá áúø äëé "åéëúåá òì äìåçåú" ...

(k)

Implied Question: And when the Torah writes after this "And he wrote on the Luchos ... "?

äééðå àçø àåúí î' éåí åî' ìéìä, ãàåúí àçøåðéí äéå çñéøéí ìéìä.

1.

Answer: ... it refers to the period following those forty days and forty nights, and those last ones were missing a night.

åà"ú, áùìîà ìø' éåñé, ãàîø áùáú ôø÷ øáé ò÷éáà (ãó ôæ:) ãñéåï ãääéà ùúà äåä áàçã áùáú, ðéçà, ãòìä áä' -ìôé çùáåï ãàçã îìà åàçã çñø, ãéåí ì' áàá éåí ä' äåä...

(l)

Question: It is fine according to Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion, in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 87b) Sivan of that year fell on Sunday, since then, he ascended on the fifth - according to the Cheshbon that one month is full and one month, short - since the thirtieth of Av fell on Thursday ...

àáì ìøáðï, ãàîøé ãáéåí á' äåä ø"ç ñéåï, ðîöà éåí ì' áàá áéåí å'...

1.

Question (cont.): ... But according to the Rabanan, who maintain that Rosh Chodesh fell on Monday, it turns out that the thirtieth of Av fell on Friday (and not on Thursday) ...

àí ìà ðàîø ãìøáðï áé"æ áúîåæ ùøó àú äòâì åãï äçåèàéí, åáå áéåí òìä, åáéåí ë"ç áàá éøã áäùëîä åôñì ìåçåú, åáë"è áàá ùäéä éåí ä' òìä.

(m)

Answer #1: Unless we say according to the Rabanan, either that Moshe burned the Golden Calf and punished the sinners on the seventeenth of Tamuz and ascended the Mountain on the same day; he came down on the twenty-eighth of Av early in the morning and carved out the Luchos, and ascended again on the twenty-ninth of Av, which was a Thursday ...

àå ðàîø ùë"è áàá éøã åáå áéåí òìä, åðàîø ùäéä àá çñø, ëãé ùéáà éåí äéøéãä áéåä"ë...

(n)

Answer #2: ... or that he descended on the twenty-ninth of Av and ascended again on the same day, and Av was a short month, in order that the day of his descent should turn out to be on Yom Kipur ...

ëãàîø áéù ðåçìéï (á"á ãó ÷ëà.) ù'áå ðéúðå ìåçåú àçøåðåú.'

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... on which the second Luchos were given, as the Gemara states in Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 121a).

àáì ìôé îãøù úðçåîà ùàåîø ãáé"æ áúîåæ éøã, åáé"ç áå ùøó àú äòâì åãï àú äçåèàéí åáé"è òìä...

(o)

Question #1: According to the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshas Ki Sissa [See Mesores ha'Shas]) however, which explains that Moshe descended on the seventeenth of Tamuz, burned the Eigel and punished the sinners on the eighteenth and ascended on the nineteenth ...

åðîöà éåí òìééä ùì î' àçøåðéí áà' áàìåì, ìà éáà áä' ìà ìøáðï åìà ìø' éåñé?

1.

Question #1 (cont.): ... and the day that Moshe ascended for the third set of forty days was on Rosh Chodesh Ellul, it can not have been on Thursday, either according to the Rabanan or according to Rebbi Yossi?

åâí ìà úîöà éøéãä áéåí äëôåøéí...

2.

Question #2: Nor will his descent turn out to have taken place on Yom Kipur?

àí ìà ùðàîø ãòáøåä ìàìåì [åòé' úåñ' ùáú ôè. ã"ä ìñåó].

(p)

Answer): Unless we say that they declared Ellul a full month (See Tosfos Shabbos, Daf 89a DH 'le'Sof').

3)

TOSFOS DH VE'DANIN BE'SHEINI U'VA'CHAMISHI

úåñ' ã"ä åãðéï áá' åáä'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Ezra's Takanah.)

åà"ú, åäìà ÷åãí ú÷ðú òæøà äéå áéú ãéï ÷áåòéï áëì éåí, ëãàîø áëúåáåú (ãó â. åùí), à"ë îä úé÷ï òæøà? åëé úé÷ï ùìà éäå ÷áåòéï àìà áá' åáä'?

(a)

Question: Beis-Din already sat daily before the Takanah of Ezra, as the Gemara states in Kesuvos (on Daf 3a, Tosfos DH 'she'Batei'), so what did Ezra institute? Did he institute that they should only sit on Mondays and Thursdays?

åàåîø ø"ú ùìà äéå ÷áåòéï úçéìä áëì éåí àìà áòéø àçú, åäåà úé÷ï áëì òéø åòéø áá' åáä'.

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam (See Mesores ha'Shas) explains that initially, they would only sit in one city, and he instituted that they should sit in every city.

4)

TOSFOS DH VE'SHE'TEHEI ISHAH CHOFEFES

úåñ' ã"ä åùúäà àùä çåôôú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Chafifah and elaborates.)

àåø"ú ùìà úé÷ï çôéôä àìà áøàù.

(a)

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that they only instituted Chafifah on the head.

åëï îùîò -îã÷àîø áñîåê 'ãàåøééúà -ãìîà î÷èø' ...

1.

Support: And so it is implied when the Gemara will say shortly 'd'Oraysa - perhaps it will become knotted'.

å'çôéôä' ðîé ìà ùééëà àìà áøàù...

(b)

Proof: In fact, the term 'Chafifah' only applies to the head ...

ëãúðï áðæéø (ãó îá.) 'ðæéø çåôó åîôñôñ, àáì ìà ñåø÷' ...

1.

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Nazir (Daf 42a) 'Nazir Chofef u'Mefaspes (separate), Aval Lo Sorek (comb)' ...

àáì áùàø äâåó ùééê ìùåï 'äãçä' ...

(c)

Proof (cont.): ... but regarding other parts of the body, the equivalent term is 'Hadachah' ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãðãä (ãó ñå: åùí) 'ìòåìí éìîã àãí áúåê áéúå ùúäà àùä îãéçä áéú ÷îèéä áîéí' .

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in the last Perek of Nidah (Daf 66b, See Tosfos DH 'Im') 'A man should teach in his home that a woman must wash (Madichah) the folds in her skin with water' ...

åîäúí ðîé îùîò ãáùàø äâåó àéï öøéê äãçä àìà ãå÷à áéú ÷îèéä...

(d)

Chidush: Which also implies that it is only the folds in the skin that require washing, but not the rest of her body.

àó òì âá ãàéëà ìîéîø ã'áéú ÷îèéä' ð÷è ìøáåúà, ãàò"â ãáéàú îéí ìà áòéðï, øàåé ìáéàú îéí áòéðï...

(e)

Question: Even though one could say that it mentions 'the folds' to teach us that, although the water does not need to actually enter the folds, they must be able to do so ...

îëì î÷åí, îãìà ÷àîø 'àôéìå ÷îèéä' ,îùîò ãå÷à ì÷îèéä åìà áùàø äâåó.

(f)

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Gemara did not say 'even the folds', it implies the folds exclusively, and not the rest of her body.

åääéà ã'ãåãé çñøú ...' (ùí ãó ñç.), àó òì ôé ùàéï çåáä...

(g)

Implied Question: And as for the Sugya 'Are you short of pots?' (to wash in [Ibid, Daf 68a]), even though it is not obligatory to do so ...

äéúä øâéìä ìøçåõ, ëîå ùðåäâéï âí òëùéå ìøçåõ ëì âåôä áîéí çîéï [åòé' úåñôåú ðãä ñå: ã"ä àí].

(h)

Answer: ... she (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's wife) was accustomed to washing, just as it is the Minhag nowadays to wash the entire body in warm water (See Tosfos, NIdah 66b DH 'Im').

82b----------------------------------------82b

5)

TOSFOS DH ASA IHU VE'TIKEIN AFILU LE'DIVREI TORAH

úåñ' ã"ä àúà àéäå åúé÷ï àôéìå ìãáøé úåøä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Halachah on this issue and discusses it.)

ìà ÷ééîà ìï äëé àìà ëø' éäåãä áï áúéøà, ãàîø 'ãáøé úåøä àéï î÷áìéï èåîàä' ...

(a)

Halachah: We do not Pasken like this, but like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who rules that 'The words of Torah are not subject to Tum'ah' ...

ëãàîø áøàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ãó ÷ìå: åùí) åáîé ùîúå (áøëåú ãó ëá.) 'äàéãðà ðäåâ òìîà ëúìúà ñáé' .

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'Reishis ha'Gez' (Chulin, Daf 136b, Tosfos DH 'Rebbi') and in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf '22a) 'Nowadays the universal Minhag is like the three elders ... '.

åà"ú, ãäéëé àìéí ø' éäåãä ìáèì ú÷ðú òæøà?

(b)

Question: How could Rebbi Yehudah dare to negate the Takanah of Ezra?

åé"ì, ããìîà ñáø ãìà úé÷ï òæøà ãáø æä.

(c)

Answer #1: Perhaps in his opinion, Ezra never initiate such a Takanah ...

àé ðîé, äúðä ùëì îé ùøåöä ìáèì éáèì...

(d)

Answer #2: ... Or perhaps he stipulated that whoever wishes to negate it may do so ...

ãáëé äàé âååðà îåúø, ëãàîø áøéù îåòã ÷èï (ãó â:)

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): Since in such a case, it is permitted, as the Gemara states at the beginning of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 3b).

àé ðîé, ìà ôùè àéñåøå áøåá éùøàì...

(e)

Answer #3: Alternatively, the Isur did not spread to most of Yisrael ...

ëãàîøéðï âáé 'ùîï' áô' àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó ìå.).

1.

Source: ... as the Gemara states with regard to 'oil' in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 36a).

åàò"â ãîùîò äúí ãàé ãðéàì âæø òìéå, ìà äéä ø' éäåãä ðùéàä éëåì ìáèìå -àò"ô ùìà ôùè...

(f)

Implied Question: Even though it is implied there that if Daniel instigated the decree, Rebbi Yehudah would not be able to annul it ...

äééðå áîéìúà ãëúéá á÷øà, àáì ú÷ðú òæøà ìà ëúéá á÷øà.

(g)

Answer: ... that is only because it (the decree on oil) is written in a Pasuk, whereas that of Ezra is not.

åäà ããøéù áîé ùîúå (áøëåú ãó ëà:) îãëúéá "åäåãòúí ìáðéê" ,åñîéê ìéä "éåí àùø òîãú" ,îä ìäìï áòìé ÷øééï àñåøéï ... '

(h)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara Darshens in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf 21b) that, since the Pasuk writes "And you shall teach them to your children", after which it writes "The day on which you stood" - 'Just as there Ba'alei Keri are forbidden' ...

àñîëúà äéà, ãäà òæøà úé÷ï.

(i)

Answer: ... that is merely an Asmachta, seeing as it is Ezra who instituted it.

åäà ãàîø áîé ùîúå (ùí ãó éç:) âáé áðéäå -ã'úáø âæéæà ãáøãà åðçú åèáì... '

(j)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara states in 'Mi she'Meiso' (Ibid. Daf 18b) that 'Benayahu broke the sheet of ice and went down and Toveled' ...

ìà ìãáøé úåøä, ãàëúé òæøà ìà äåä, àìà ìàëåì çåìéï áèäøä.

(k)

Answer: ... that was not to study Torah, since that was before Ezra's time - but in order to eat Chulin be'Taharah.

6)

TOSFOS DH VE'EINAH MEVI'AH EGLAH ARUFAH

úåñ' ã"ä åàéðä îáéàä òâìä òøåôä

(Summary: Tosfos queries the need to give the current reason, in view of the Sugya in Bava Basra.)

åà"ú, îàé àøéà 'îùåí ãìà ðúçì÷ä' ,úéôå÷ ìéä îùåí ãàéú ìï ìîéæì áúø øåáà ãòìîà? ëãàîø á'ìà éçôåø' (á"á ãó ëâ:) .

(a)

Question: Why give the reason of 'Lo Nischalkah'? What is wrong with the reason that the Gemara gives in 'Lo Yachpor' (Bava Basra, Daf 23b) that 'We need to go after the majority of the world?

åàò"â ãàîø äúí ã'áéåùáú áéï ääøéí ìà àæìéðï áúø øåáà,' å"éøåùìéí äøéí ñáéá ìä" ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Even though the Gemara says there that 'If it is situated among the mountains, we do not go after the majority' - and "Yerushalayim is surrounded by mountains" ...

îëì î÷åí äéå éùøàì ðëðñéï åéåöàéï ìä ìòìåú ìøâì, åáùàø éîåú äùðä ðîé ìùìí ðãøéí åðãáåú...

(c)

Refutation: ... nevertheless, Yisrael would enter and leave it when they were Oleh Regel, and even on the other days of the year, to bring their Nedarim and Nedavos ...

åâí àåîåú äòåìí äéå áàéï ìä ìñçåøä, ù÷øåéä "øåëìú òîéí... "

1.

Refutation (cont.): In fact, even the nations of the world used to come there for business, as it was called "the peddlar of the nations" (See Rashash).

åé"ì, ãî"î äéå ùí î÷åîåú ùìà äéå îöåééí ëé àí éåùáé éøåùìéí ìáãí.

(d)

Answer #1: Nevertheless, there were areas there where one would find only residents of Yerushalayim.

àé ðîé, áéîé çæ÷éä, ùëì éùøàì äéå áéøåùìéí åìà äéå áàéï ìñçåøä.

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking in the days of Chizkiyah, when all of Yisrael lived in Yerushalayim, and nobody came there to do business.

7)

TOSFOS DH VE'EIN METAMEI BI'NEGA'IM DI'CHESIV ACHUZASCHEM VI'YERUSHALAYIMLO NISCHALKAH LI'SHEVATIM

úåñ' ã"ä åàéï îèîà áðâòéí ãëúéá àçåæúëí åéøåùìéí ìà ðúçì÷ä ìùáèéí

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this statement must be taken literally.)

àéï ìôøù ùðúçì÷ä, àìà ùðúðå ãåùðä ùì éøéçå úçúéä, åìôéëê àéï îèîà...

(a)

Refuted Explanation: One cannot take this to mean that really it was apportioned, only (later) they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place, which is why it is not subject to Tum'as Nega'im ...

ãáô"÷ ãéåîà (ãó éá.) îùîò ãìî"ã 'ìà ðúçì÷ä' ' ,ìà ðúçì÷ä' îîù.

(b)

Refutation: ... because in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 12a) it implies that according to the opinion that holds 'Lo Nischalkah', it is meant literally.

åà"ú, îðìéä ã'ìà ðúçì÷ä' îîù? ãìîà ñáø 'ðúçì÷ä' àìà ùðúðå ãåùðä ùì éøéçå úçúéä...

(c)

Question: From where does the Gemara know that 'Lo Nischalkah' is meant literally? Perhaps he holds 'Nischalkah', only they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place ...

ëîå ìø' éäåãä ãàîø 'ðúçì÷ä åîèîà, åáéú äî÷ãù òöîå àéï îèîà, àò"â ãðúçì÷...

1.

Precedent: ... like Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Nischalkah and it is Metamei, only the Beis-ha'Mikdash itself is not Metamei, even though it was apportioned ...

àìà îùåí ùðúðå ãåùðä ùì éøéçå úçúéå, ëãàîø äúí?

2.

Precedent (cont.): Since they gave Doshnah of Yericho in its place, as the Gemara explains there (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim)?

åé"ì, ãáéú äî÷ãù ñáøà äåà àò"â ãðúçì÷, ãçæøå å÷ðå àåúå ëãé ùéäà ìëì éùøàì çì÷ áå...

(d)

Answer: Because on the one hand, it is a S'vara to say that, as far as the Beis-ha'Mikdash is concerned, although it was apportioned, they went and reacquired it so that all of Yisrael should have a portion in it ...

àáì éøåùìéí, àí îúçéìä ðúçì÷ä, ìîä äéå çåæøéï å÷åðéï àåúä?

1.

Answer (cont.): ... but on the other, with regard to Yerushalayim, if it was initially apportioned, why would they go and reacquire it?

8)

TOSFOS DH LO YEGADEL ADAM CHAZIRIN

úåñ' ã"ä ìà éâãì àãí çæéøéï

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with a number of Sugyos, which prohibit dealing with non-Kasher products on principle.)

åà"ú, ú"ì ãàñåø ìòùåú ñçåøä áëì ãáøéí èîàéí?

(a)

Question: Why is it not forbidden, on account of the prohibition to do business with Tamei things?

ëãúðï áîñëú ùáéòéú (ô"æ î"â) 'àéï òåùéï ñçåøä áðáéìåú åèøéôåú' ...

1.

Source #1: ... as we learned in Maseches Shevi'is (7:3) 'One may not do business with Neveilos and T'reifos' ...

åáô' ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëâ. åùí) ðîé àåîø 'öééãé çéä åòåó ùðæãîðå ìäí îéðéí èîàéí' -ãå÷à 'ðæãîðå' ,àáì ìëúçéìä ìà...

(b)

Source #2: And in Perek Kol Sha'ah too (Pesachim, Daf 23b, DH 'Amar') it says 'Hunters of Chayos and birds who happen to have Tamei species ... ' - specifically 'happen to have', but Lechatchilah, it is forbidden ...

ëããøéù äúí "éäéå," ' áäåééúï éäà' ...

1.

Torah Source: ... as the Gemara Darshens there "Yih'yu" - 'they shall retain their original status'.

åáú"ë ðîé ãøùéðï "ù÷õ äåà ìëí" ' ,ùìà ìòùåú ñçåøä áäï.'

2.

Source #3: Also the Toras Kohanim (in Shemini 3:11) Darshens "Sheketz Hu lachem" - 'that one may not do business with them'.

åúéøõ ø"ú, ãäééðå ãå÷à áãáø äòåîã ìàëéìä, àáì àí îâãìï ìîùåç òåøåú áùåîðï àå ìîåëøï ìéùøàì ùéîùç áäï, ùøé.

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that that speaks specifically about something that stands to be eaten, but if one rears them in order to anoint skins with their fat or to sell them to a Yisrael to do so, it is permitted.

åëï çìá îåúø ìîëåø, äéëà ãìà ÷àé ìàëéìä.

1.

Answer (cont.): And in the same way, one may sell Cheilev, there where it does not stand to be eaten.

åáéøåùìîé ðîé îôøù áäàé ôéø÷à ãñåñéí åçîåøéí ùøé ìòùåú áäï ñçåøä, îùåí ãñúîï ìîìàëä.

(d)

Yerushalmi: And it is by the same token that the Yerushalmi, in this Perek, explains that one may do business with horses and donkeys, since presumably they are designated for working.

9)

TOSFOS DH VE'ASUR LE'ADAM SHE'YELAMED B'NO CHACHMAS YEVANIS

úåñ' ã"ä àøåø ìàãí ùéìîã áðå çëîú éååðéú

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Sugya in Sotah, which gives a much later date for this decree.)

åà"ú, åäìà áôåìîåñ ùì èéèåñ âæøå, ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãñåèä (ãó îè.)...

(a)

Question: But they issued this decree during the war with Titus, as the Gemara explains in the last Perek of Sotah (Daf 40a)

åèéèåñ äéä áùòú çåøáï, ëãàîøéðï áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ãó ðå:), åîìëåú áéú çùîåðàé ÷ãîé èåáà, ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãò"æ (ãó è.)?

1.

Question (cont.): Titus lived in the time of the Churban, as we learned in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 56b), which the kingdom of the Chashmona'im preceded by a long time, as we learned in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 9a)?

åé"ì, ãîòé÷øà âæøå åìà ÷áìå îéðééäå.

(b)

Answer #1: Initially they decreed, but the people did not accept it.

à"ð, àé äåä áòé ìîé÷í áàøåø ìà äéä îé÷øé òáøééï, àáì ìáñåó àéëà âæéøä ãøáðï.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, had someone initially wanted to accept the curse, he would not have been declared a transgressor, whereas in the end, he would have transgressed an Isur de'Rabanan.

åðøàä ã'ìà éâãì' ãîúðé' äéà äéúä âæéøä ãôåìîåñ ùì èéèåñ.

(d)

Conclusion: And it (therefore) appears that the prohibition of rearing Chazirim in the Mishnah refers to the decree that they issued during the war with Titus.

10)

TOSFOS DH V'AL OSAH SHA'AH SHANINU MA'ASEH SHE'BA ETC

úåñ' ã"ä åòì àåúä ùòä ùðéðå îòùä ùáà ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in Menachos, which ascribes this incident to the days of Mordechai.)

îùðä äéà áîðçåú áô' ø' éùîòàì (ãó ñã: åùí).

(a)

Source: It is a Mishnah in Menachos, in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Daf 64b, Tosfos, DH 'Arur').

åà"ú, åäà áéîé îøãëé äåä äîòùä, ëãàîø äúí áâî' 'ãàúà çøùà àåúéá éãéä àâðà ... . àîø ìäï îøãëé ? '

(b)

Question: But this episode took place in the days of Mordechai, as the Gemara says there - that when 'A deaf-mute came and placed his hand on the garden ... Mordechai said to them ... ' ...

åúéîä âãåìä äéà àí çéä îøãëé ëì ëê -ãáéú çùîåðàé ìà äéå ëé àí ø"å ùðéí ÷åãí äçåøáï, ëãàîø áô"÷ ãò"æ (ãó è.)?

(c)

Question (cont.): ... and it would be most surprising for Mordechai to have lived so long - since the family of the Chashmona'im lived only two hundred and six years before the Churban, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 9a) ... (and Mordechai went into exile with Yechonyah before the Churban Bayis Rishon)?

åðøàä ìø"é, ãëì àåúï ùäéå á÷éàéí áøîæéí åáìùåðåú, äéå ð÷øàéí òì ùí îøãëé, ìôé ùäåà äéä øàù åçëí ìäëéø.

(d)

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that all those years when they were experts at conveying hints and coining expressions, they would call the Chacham concerned 'Mordechai', who was the sage and who was expert in expressions.

åàåúå îòùä ãâ' ðùéí ãîééúé äúí ðøàä ùäéä îøãëé îîù...

(e)

Clarification: However, it appears that the episode of the three women that the Gemara cites there actually occurred with (the original) 'Mordechai' ...

ã÷àîø 'åäééðå ãúðï (ù÷ìéí ôø÷ ä' îùðä à') "ôúçéä òì ä÷ðéï. ' "

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... since the Gemara says there 'That is what the Mishnah means when it says 'Pesachyah (alias Mordechai) was in charge of the birds-nests' (in connection with the Korbanos).