1) TOSFOS DH LASHON SURSI

(Summary: Tosfos equates Lashon Sursi with Lashon Arami and elaborates.)

...

(a) Clarification: It seems that the Sursi language is equivalent to Aramaic ...

( //) , ...

1. Proof: As the Bereishis Rabah (Perek 75) says Dont treat the Sursi language lightly, since the Pasuk honors it in Torah, Neviim and Kesuvim ...

- ; - ; - .

2. Proof (cont.): Torah, as it is written (in Bereishis 31) Ygar Sahadusa ; Neviim - as it is written (in Yirmiyah 10) and in Kesuvim - Seifer Daniel and Seifer Ezra.

, , .

3. Proof (concl.): Lavan was from Aram Naharayim and Daniel too, it calls Sursi, even though the Pasuk there wwrites And the Kasdim (Babylonians) spoke to the king in Arqamaic.

?

(b) Question: And the reason that here, in Eretz Yisrael it calls it Sursi and in Bavel, Arqamaic ...

, ...

(c) Answer: Rabein u Tam explains that it is because the dialect changes slightly from place to place, like we find regarding foreign languages which is more pure/authentic in some places than in others.

.

1. Example: Hence Unklus haGer trqanslates Eid haGal haZeh as Sahid deGura haDein, whilst Lavan called it Ygar Sahadusa.

, , .

(d) Conclusion: Rabeinu Tam goes on to explain the dialect spoken by Lavan was Sursi, called by that name because it was spoken in Surya, incorporating Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah (Syria) which David captured.

.

1. Conclusion (cont.): And it is because they are close to Eretz Yisrael that the Aramaic that is spoken there is not as pure (as the Aamaic spoken in Bavel) See also Gilyon haShas.

2) TOSFOS DH HITIRU L'SAPER KUMI

(Summary: Tosfos explains Avtulmus Heter to shave Kumi.)

, ...

(a) Clarification: The decree was not initially instituted on those who were close to the rulers, and he (Avtulmus) had an ongoing relationship with the rulers ...

( .) , .

1. Proof: As the Gemara says in Meilah (Daf 17b), where it recounts how Avtulmus ben Reuven went and shaved Kumi, so that they should not be aware that he was a Yehudi; and he succeeded in tricking them.

3) TOSFOS DH SHNEI ALAFIM USHENEI RIVVOS GARSINAN

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the text and reconciles the number with the Gemara in Sanhedrin which gives the minimum number as ten.)

...

(a) Rejection of Text: We do not have the text Shnei Alafim Revavos (two thousand times ten thousand) ...

.

1. Reason: Since in the desert they were only six hundred thousand, yet the Shechinah rested on them.

( .) ?

(b) Implied Question: Nor is there any connection between the Gemafra here and the Sugya in Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 39a) that The Shechinah rests wherever there is a gathering of ten Yehudim?

.

(c) Answer: Because here the Gemara is talking about prophets and the Mishkan (which requires a higher level of Shechinah.

4) TOSFOS DH VHATANYA UVYICHUV AFILU MEAH MIL LO YIFROS

(Summary: Tosfos queries the Beraisa from various angles.)

.

(a) Introduction to Question: Clearly, the Gemara, at this stage, is not aware of the ultimate interpretation of the Beraisa.

[] , , ?

(b) Question, Side #1: It implies that a hundred Mil is Laav Davka, only even within a thousand Mil, one is forbidden to spread nets, in which case what exactly, is meant by Yishuv?

, , , .

1. Question (cont.): If it refers to the town as Yishuv, then it will be forbidden to spread nets anywhere, even in the desert, because even if the desert is a thousand Mil away, did we not say that a hundred Mil is Laav Davka ...

...

(c) Question, Side #2: And even if we say that a hundred Mil is Davka ...

, , , ?

(d) Question, Side #2 (cont.): The Reisha and the Seifa clash, since the Reisha permits spreading nets thirty Ris from the Yishuv, whereas the Seifa forbids even a distance of a hundred Mil?

() ; , ?

1. Source: For so the Beraisa (the Tosefta, Perek 8) states One is not permitted to spread nets for doves unless they one distances them from the Yishuv thirty Ris; That speaks in a desert, but in an inhabited area, it is to spread them even a hundred Mil away?

, , ...

(e) Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that the Gemara initially thinks that in a Yishuv of seeds they fly further, whereas the Reisha of the Beraisa is speaking in a Yishuv ov the city, which it calls Midbar since it is devoid of seeds ...

, ?

(f) Refutation: Because in that case, what is the Gemaras Kashya?

- , , ?

(g) Answer: The Ritzba therefore explains that the Gemara did indeed think that it is speaking about a Yishuv of seeds, an what asks is Does it only fly thirty Ris and no more - even in a Yishuv of seeds?

, ? ?

1. Answer (cont.): But it is evident from the Seifa that in a Yishuv of seeds, they fly further than that, which is only in order to eat? So we see that it does not fill its stomach in an area of fifty Amos?

, .

(h) Answer (concl.): And it answers that it is speaking specifically about a Yihuv of vineyards or one of dove-cots, an it refers to it as Midbar, there where there are no vineyards or dovecots.

83b----------------------------------------83b

PEREK HACHOVEL

5) TOSFOS DH MAKEH BEHEIMAH YESHALMENAH VSAMICH LEIH VISH KI YITEN

(Summary: Initially, Tosfos explains why the words veSamich leih ought to be omitted and elaborates.)

...

(a) Rejection of Text: It seems to the Ri that one should omit the text veSamich leih ...

...

(b) Reason: Seeing as the Gemara learns this, not from Semuchim but from a Gezeirah Shavah ...

.

1. Proof #1: As the Gemara says later We meant to say Hakaah Hakaah.

, ? .

2. Proof #2: It also says later And since the Torah writes Do not take ransom money from a murderer, why do we need Makeh Makeh?, implying that it nis a Gezeirah Shavah and not Semuchim?

, , ? ...

3. Proof #3: Furthermore, when the Gemara will ask shortly What do you see to learn from Makeh Beheimah? Why not lear it from Makeh Adam? ...

, , ?

4. Proof #3 (cont.): If it is learned from Semuchim, what is the Kashya, seeing as Makeh Adam is not juxtaposed to Ish ki Yiten Mum?

, , ?

(c) Question: Now that we learn it from a Gezeirah Shavah, why does the Gemara see fit to cite the Pasuk Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, and to ignore that of Makeh Beheimah which it cited earlier?

, ; , ( :) , ... .

(d) Answer #1: It needs the Pasuk Makeh Beheimah for Tana debei Chizkiyah; and as for those who dont concur with him, the Gemara at the beginning of haNechnakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 84b) Darshens from it Just as someone who strikes an animal in order to heal it is Patur ... .

, , , .

(e) Answer #2: Alternatively, once the Gemara retracts from Makeh Adam since it speaks about Misah, it retracts from it completely, and cites the Pasuk Makeh Nefesh Beheimah which is next to Ish ki Yiten Mum.

, , , .

(f) Conclusion: According to that, one can reinstate the text veSamich leih, since, it is because it is next to it that it opts to cite that Pasuk, though it is not on acount of Semuchim.

6) TOSFOS DH AF HAKAAH HAAMURAH BADAM LTASHLUMIN

(Summary: Tosfos cites an addition to the text and rejects it.)

, ?

(a) Alternative Text: Some texts read after this Is it not written Ish ki Yakeh kol Nefesh Adam, Mos Yumas? ...

? . , ?

1. Explanation: Meaning that one should destroy his limb in payment of the limb of his friend? And it answers Yumas beMamon. How do you know that it means Mamon, Perhaps it means literally destroy?

, , , , - .

2. Explanation (cont.): This cannot be correct; firstly, because it is compared to Makeh Nefesh Beheimah, Secondly, because the Torah writes there Kaasher Yiten Mum baAdam, kein Yinasen bo - a proof that it means Mamon.

...

(b) Rejection of Text: The Ri completely rejects this text however ...

( .) , - ?

(c) Refutation #1: Firstly, since the Gemara in haNisrafin (Sanhedrin, Daf 78a) establishes the Pasuk Ish ki Yakeh kol Nefesh Adam by death - in connection with the Machlokes betwen Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabanan, in the case of Ten men who smite someone with ten sticks.

, ?

(d) Refutation #2: Secondly, we dont need a Pasuk for Mamon?

, - , ?

(e) Refutation #3: Thirdly, what does the Gemara initially ask Is it not written Ish ki Yakeh kol Nefesh Adam - Why is this Pasuk any better than that of :Ayin tachas Ayin, which we establish by Mamon, from the Gezeirah Shavah Hakaah Hakaah?

, , ?

(f) Refutation #4: And fourthly, Since the Torah writes KAasher Yiten Mum baAdam kein Yinasen bo, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah Hakaah Hakaah?

.

(g) Conclusion: It therefore seems clear that we do not have that text at all.

7) TOSFOS DH MICHEDEI RISHASO NAFKA

(Summary: Tosfos refers to the Gemara in the swecond Perek.)

( .).

(a) Reference: Tosfos explained it already at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a, DH Alav.)

8) TOSFOS DH MAI CHAZIS DYALAFT MIMAKEH BEHEIMAH NEILAF MIMAKEH ADAM

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this is necessary.)

, ...

(a) Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is not really needed for this, since we would automatically interpret Ayin Tachas Ayin literally ...

.

(b) Answer: It is nevertheless necessary to insert it, so as not to learn otherwise from Makeh Beheimah.

9) TOSFOS DH MAKEH MAKEH LAMAH LI

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles the Gemaras Kashya with the opinion of Rava in Kesuvos.)

, ( .) ?

(a) Question: Rava in Perek Eilu Naaros (Kesuvos, Daf 35a) Darshens that the Torah is coming to obligate Chayvei Malkiyos to pay just like Chayvei Misah from the Gezeirah-Shavah Makeh Makeh?

, .

(b) Answer: Rava is simply following his own opinion, inasmuch as he learns later (on Daf 84a) that Ayin Tachas Ayin means money from a different Pasuk.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF