KERISUS 14 (4 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Yisachar (ben Yaakov) Smulewitz of Cleveland on his Yahrzeit, by his son in law, Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel.

1)

TOSFOS DH IM HAYAH SHABBOS V'HOTZI'O

úåñ' ã"ä àí äéä ùáú åäåöéàå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling.)

åà"ú, îä ùééê æä ìòðéï àëéìä?

(a)

Question: What has this to do with eating (See Shitah Mekubetzes 23)?

åéù ìåîø, ãäëé ôéøåùå ' -åäåöéàå áôéå' ...

(b)

Answer: The Tana means that he carried it out in his mouth ...

ãëéåï ùäðéçå áôéå áøä"é åäåöéàä áøùåú äøáéí, îçééá îùåí äåöàä- ãáìéòúå äéà äðçúå ...

1.

Clarification: Because when he placed it in his mouth in the R'shus ha'Yachid and took it out to the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav for carrying - since swallowing it is akin to putting it down ...

ãäà îåöéà ùúé àåúéåú åëúáï ëùäåà îäìê, çééá -ãëúéáúï æå äéà äðçúï.

(c)

Precedent: Because someone who carries (ink for) two letters and writes them as he is walking, is Chayav - because writting them is akin to putting them down (See marginal notes of the Ein Mishpat).

2)

TOSFOS DH OMAR ULA KOMETZ PIGUL ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àîø òåìà ÷åîõ ôéâåì ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask from 'Eiver' itself.)

åàí úàîø, àîàé ìà ôøéê îàáø âåôéä ...

(a)

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask from the limb itself ...

ãàîø ôø÷ äîæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ôã. åôä:) ãçùéá ùçèå çåõ ìæîðå ... àí òìå, ìà éøãå; ëê àí éøãå, ìà éòìå' .

(b)

Introduction to Question: Since the Gemara in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim, Daf 84a & 85b) states that, in the case of someone who has in mind Chutz li'Zemano - 'Just as, once it goes on the Mizbe'ach, it is not taken down, so too, once it is taken down, it is not returned'.

å÷àîø òåìà 'ì"ù àìà ùìà îùìä áå äàåø, àáì îùìä áå äàåø, àôéìå éøãå, éòìå ...

1.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And Ula states there, that that is only where the fire has not yet caught hold of it, but once it has, then even if it was taken down, it is returned ...

åà"ë, ù"î ãðòùä ìçîå ùì îæáç, åô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå?

(c)

Question (cont.): In which case, we see that, once it has become 'the bread of the Mizbe'ach', its Pigul status is removed from it?

åé"ì, ãîëì î÷åí ìà úðà ìéä áäãéà ëì ëê ãô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå ëîå áääéà ãäëà ãä÷åîõ.

(d)

Answer: Nevertheless, the fact that its Pigul is removed from it is not as explicit as the case of Kometz that the Gemara cites here.

3)

TOSFOS DH PAKA PIGULO MIMENU

úåñ' ã"ä ô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå

(Summary: Tosfos cites Rashi in Menachos who explains this, and elaborates.)

áîðçåú ä÷ùä øù"é ôø÷ ä÷åîõ (ãó éã.) àîàé àéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòè ÷åîõ îôéâåì? úéôå÷ ìé ãìà ÷øá äîúéø ëîöåúå?

(a)

Question: Rashi in Perek ha'Kometz (Menachos, Daf 14a) asks why we need a Pasuk to preclude the Kometz from Pigul? Why can we not know it from the fact that its Matir was not brought according to the Halachah?

åúéøõ, ãîééøé áîùìä áå äàåø áøåáå, ùäåúøå äùéøéí...

(b)

Answer: And he answers that it speaks where the fire caught hold of most of it, so that what was left became permitted.

ëãàîøéðï '÷åîõ îàéîúé îúéø äùéøééí áàëéìä? îùäåöú äàåø áøåáå.'

1.

Source: As the Gemara says 'When is the Kometz permitted? When the majority of it catches fire'.

å÷ùä, ãà"ë (ìå÷éí) ãô÷ò ôéâåìå îîðå, ëãîåëç äëà?

(c)

Question: But in that case, its Pigul is (anyway) removed from it, as is evident here?

åéù ìåîø, ãîééøé ùçöéå äòìä ò"â äîæáç åçöéå ìà äòìä...

(d)

Answer: It is speaking where he brought half of it on the Mizbe'ach, and half he did not.

ãìà ô÷ò ôéâåìå îï äçöé ùðùàø, åî''î ÷øá äîúéø ëîöåúå, ëéåï ùäòìä îîðå ëæéú òì äîæáç.

1.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, the Pigul was not therefore removed from the latter, yet he brought the Matir according to the Halachah, seeing as he brought a k'Zayis of it on the Mizbe'ach.

åàí úàîø, åàôé' ìëúçìä ðîé îòìéï ìéä... ?

(e)

Question: Then why can he not bring it even Lechatchilah? ...

ëãàîøéðï ôø÷ áéú ùîàé (æáçéí îâ:) 'äàé ÷åîõ ãôìâéä àðçéä ààøòà åôìâé àñ÷é , àîãáçàú àñé÷ðà ìéä ìëúçìä.'

1.

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 43b) 'If half the Kometz is lying on the ground and half has been brought on the Mizbe'ach, one may bring the former on the Mizbe'ach even Lechatchilah'.

åé"ì, ùàðé äúí, ùäéä ëåìå îúçìä ò"â äîæáç åàç"ë äåøéã çöéå ìîèä, àáì äëà ìà äéä òì äîæáç.

(f)

Answer: It is different there, seeing as initially, all of it was initially on the Mizbe'ach, and was only taken down afterwards, whereas here, it has not been on the Mizbe'ach at all.

åà"ú, îðçú ðñëéí åîðçú ëäï îùéç ùäí ëåìï ëìéì ,àîàé öøéê ÷øà ìîòè àåúí îôéâåì ...

(g)

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude from Pigul a Minchas Besachim and a Minchah of a Kohen Gadol, seeing as they are entirely burned ...

åäìà àéðä îúøú ùåí ãáø?

1.

Question (cont.): And they are therefore not Matir anything?

åéù ìåîø, ëéåï ù÷ãùå áëìé, äåé ëîå ÷øáå îúéøéï, å÷áòä áôéâåì...

(h)

Answer: When they were sanctified in a Keli, it as if their Matirin were brought, in which case they are fixed for Pigul.

åìëê öøéê ÷øà ìîòè.

1.

Answer (cont.): And a Pasuk is therefore required to preclude them.

4)

TOSFOS DH TIFSHOT D'BA'I RANI BAR CHAMA HALCHU B'EVARIM ACHAR HA'ROV

úåñ' ã"ä úôùåè ãáòé øîé áø çîà äìëå áàáøéí àçø äøåá

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ äééðå áòéà ãôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (çåìéï ò.).

(a)

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that this is the She'eilah cited in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, 70a).

åàéðå ðøàä ìø"ú, ãîàé ùééëà ääéà áòéà ìäê ãäëà...

(b)

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam disagrees however, inasmuch as there is no connection between the two ...

ãäúí îééøé àí éöà çöéå áøåá àáø, àé äåé ëéìåã àå ìà?

1.

Reason: Since there it is speaking about where half the baby emerges with the majority of the limb, as to whether it is considered born or not?

ìëê ðøàä ìôøù ãäééðå áòéà ãôø÷ îæáç î÷ãù (æáçéí ôæ.) ãàéáòéà ìäå 'àåéø îæáç ëîæáç, àå ìà ... øåáå ìîæáç ëîæáç ãîé ,øåáå ìëáù ëëáù ãîé ...

(c)

Authentic Explanation: Therefore he explains (See footnote 1) that it refers to the She'eilah cited in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim 87a), where, in connection with the She'eilah whether 'The air of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach or not, it states 'If the majority of it is on the Mizbeach, it is like the Mizbe'ach, on the ramp, it is like the ramp' ...

'úôùåè ãáòé øîé áø çîà 'éù çéáåø áòåìéï àå ìà'?

1.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): The Gemara suggests that 'We resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - 'Yesh Chibur be'Olin O Lo?' from there.

5)

TOSFOS DH EIRUV V'HOTZA'AH L'SHABBOS

úåñ' ã"ä òéøåá åäåöàä ìùáú

(Summary: Tosfos explains the word 'Eiruv'.)

ôéøåù ðúòøáä äåöàä òí ùàø îìàëåú ìùáú, åìà ðúòøáä äåöàä òí ùàø îìàëåú ìé"ä, ìùåï îåøé æ"ì.

(a)

Clarification: Carrying is joined on to the other Melachos of Shabbos, but not on to those of Yom Kipur (The wording of Tosfos' Rebbe [See footnote 2]).

6)

TOSFOS DH ELA D'RAFRAM B'RUSA HI

úåñ' ã"ä àìà ãøôøí áøåúà äéà

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this Sugya with the Sugya in Yoma.)

åáôø÷ ùðé ùòéøéí (éåîà ñå:) àéúà ðîé äà ãäëà, åìà ãçé? ...

(a)

Implied Question: The current Sugya also appears in Perek Sh'nei Se'i'im (Yom, 61b), but the Gemara there does not reject it?

ãéìîà 'ùàðé ùòéø äîùúìç ... ' ,ëããçé äëà ...

(b)

Answer: Perhaps 'Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is different', as the Gemara concludes here ...

àìà øâéìåú äåà ããáøé úåøä òðééí áî÷åîí åòùéøéí áî÷åí àçø.

1.

Answer (cont.): And it is quite common for Divrei Torh to be poor (vague) in one location and rich (explicit) in another (See footnote 4).

14b----------------------------------------14b

7)

TOSFOS DH NISEIS L'ACHIV MIGU D'ISOSIF ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ðùàú ìàçéå îéâå ãàéúåñó ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Migu and elaborates.)

ôéøåù îùåí àùú àç.

(a)

Clarification: This is due on account of Eishes Ach.

åà"ú, åäà îîæøú äéà, åàí ëï, äéàê àñåøä ìàçéå îùåí àùú àç? àéê çì àéñåø àùú àç òì àéñåø îîæøú?

(b)

Question: But is she not a Mamzeres, in which case, how can she be Asur to his brother on account of Eishes Ach? How can the Isur of Eishes Ach take effect on that of Mamzeres?

åéù ìåîø, ãîééøé ãàçéå ðîé îîæø, åàí ëï, ìéëà àéñåø îîæøú, ãäåà òöîå ëîå ëï îîæø.

(c)

Answer #1: It is speaking where the brother is also a Mamzer, in which case there is no Isur of Mamzeres, seeing as he too, is a Mamzer.

åòé"ì, ãàéñåø çîåø çì ùôéø òì àéñåø ÷ì, ëãôøéùéú ìòéì.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, a stringent Isur does take effect on a more lenient one, as Tosfos explained above.

8)

TOSFOS DH HA'BA AL BAS BITO

úåñ' ã"ä äáà òì áú áúå

(Summary: Tosfos discusses why it does not mention bas B'nah in the Reisha and bas B'nah and bas Bitah in the Seifa, and elaborates.)

ä÷ùä øáéðå áøåê, àîàé ìà çùéá áäãééäå áú áðä -ëâåï ùðéñú áúå ìáï àùúå åéìãä ìå áú ,ãäåéà áú áúå åáú áðä ááú àçú?

(a)

Question #1: Rabeinu Baruch asks why the Tana does not include Bas B'nah - where his daughter married his wife's son and she bore him a daughter, who is both the daughter of his daughter and of her son at one and the same time?

åâí áñéôà ÷ùä, àîàé ìà úðé áú áðä åáú áúä...

(b)

Question #2: Similarly, in the Seifa, why does he not include 'Bas B'nah and Bas Bi'tah ...

ãîùëçú áúä áéò÷á ùðùà øçì åìàä ùàéðí àçéåú, åéù ìä áï ìøçì îàãí àçø, åðùà áú ìàä ùäéúä ìä îéò÷á...

1.

Question #2 (cont.): The case of Bitah would be where Ya'akov who married Rachel and Le'ah (who are not sisters), and where Rachel has a son from another man, and where he also marries Leah's daughter from Ya'akov ...

åéìãä áú ìàä áú, åáà éò÷á òìéä - äøé äéà áú áï àùúå åáú áúå?

2.

Question #2 (concl.): And Ya'akov then had relations with the daughter of Leah's daughter - who is both his wife's son's daughter and his granddaughter?

åìôé îä ùôé' ì÷îï, ãîúðé' ìà îééøé ø÷ áàéñåø îåñéó, ðéçà ùôéø.

(c)

Answer: According to Tosfos' explanation later (in the following Dibur), that the Mishnah is only talking about Isur Mosif, the questions fall away.

åä÷ùä ä÷ãåù ä"ø éåí èåá, àîàé ìà úðé çîåúå -ëâåï ùðùà áú áú áúå, ãáú áúå äéà çîåúå?

(d)

Question: The Kadosh ha'Rav Yom-Tov asks why the Mishnah does not include Chamoso - where he married the daughter of his daughter's daughter's daughter, since his daughter's daughter is his mother-in law?

åé"ì, ãú"÷ ìà îééøé áòáã àéñåøà.

(e)

Answer: The Tana Kama is not referring to a case where an Isur was performed (See Birchas ha'Zevach).

åîäàé èòîà ìà úðé àí çîåúå åàí çîéå -ãùðéåú äï...

1.

Answer (cont.): And that explains why it does not include Eim Chamoso and Eim Chamiv - since they are Sheniyos.

åàôéìå ìøáé éåñé ðîé ãîééøé áòáø æ÷ï åðùàä...

(f)

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Yossi, who does speak about where the grandfather married be'Isur ...

éù ìåîø ìäëé ìà úðé ìäå, ãìéú ìéä àéñåø ëåìì -ãäééðå ãîéâå ãàñåø áàçåú àùúå, ëìì ðîé ááúå îùåí çîåúå

1.

Answer: One can explain that it does not include it, because he does not hold of Isur Kolel - i.e. Since he is forbidden to his wife's sister, he is also forbidden to his daughter because of Chamoso.

åàôéìå ìø' çééà ãàîø ôø÷ ã' àçéï (éáîåú ìá: åìâ.) ìø' éåñé îçééá úøúé- îùåí àéñåø ëåìì ...

(g)

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Chiya, who says in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 32a & 33a) that Rebbi Yossi declares him Chayav two Chata'os - on account of Isur Kolel

äééðå áàéñåø ëåìì áùí àçã ...

(h)

Answer: That is specifically an Isur Kolel of the same name ...

àáì áùðé ùîåú åëâåï àäåú àùä åàí äîåúå, ìà ...

1.

Answer: But not one of two names, such as Achos Ishah and Eim Chamoso.

åîù"ä ðéçà ìãéãéä âáé àùú àéù åðòùú çîåúå, ãìà àîøé' ðéãåï áçîåúå ,îùåí ãùðé ùîåú äï.

(i)

Conclusion: And that explains why, according to him, when he talks about Eishes Ish who became Chamoso, he does not say that he is Chayav because of Chamoso, since they are two different names.

9)

TOSFOS DH V'ACHOS ISHTO

úåñ' ã"ä åàçåú àùúå

(Summary: Tosfos deletes this from the text and elaborates.)

åàåîø äø"é ãìà âøñ ìéä...

(a)

Negating Text: The Ri deletes this from the text ...

ãàí ëï, ùáò äåå åàãúðé ìòéì 'ùù' ,ìéúðé 'ùáò' ?

1.

Reason: Because, otherwise, why does the Tana earlier say that there are six cases, when, in fact, there are seven?

åàí úàîø, åìéúðé ùáò, åìéçùåá àçåú àùúå ... ?

(b)

Question: Why indeed, does he not say 'seven', and include Achos Ishto? ...

åëâåï ùãéðä áú éò÷á ðéñú ìàãí îòìîà, åéìãä ìå áú, åàåúå àãí äéä ìå áú àçøú îàùä àçøú, åðùàä éò÷á...

1.

Case: Where Dinah bas Ya'akov is married to a man from whom she bears a daughter, and who has another daughter from a different woman, whom Ya'akov marries ...

åàí ëï, äøé áú ãéðä ìéò÷á áú áúå åàçåú àùúå, åçééìà àéñåø àçåú àùúå áàéñåø ëåìì- îéâå ãîéúñø áùàø àçéåú îùåí àçåú àùä, àéúñø ðîé ááú ãéðä îùåí àçåú àùä?

(c)

Question (cont.): In which case Dinah's daughter to Ya'akov, is both his granddaughter and his wife's sister via an Isur Kolel - seeing as he is forbidden to her other sisters on account of Achos Ishah, he is also forbidden to Dinah's daughter on account of Achos Ishah?

åéù ìåîø, ãìà úðé ø÷ àéñåøé ãîåãé áäå ø' éåñé ãîééøé áñéôà- ãäééðå àéñåø îåñéó.

(d)

Answer: The Tana only includes Isurim with which Rebbi Yossi agrees who speaks in the Seifa - i.e. cases of Isur Mosif.

åàôéìå ìø' çééà ãàîø ãàéú ìéä ìø' éåñé àéñåø ëåìì...

(e)

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Chiya, who maintains (in Yevamos, 33a) that Rebbi Yossi does include cases of Isur Kolel ...

é"ì ìà ðçú ìîéúðé áîúðé' ø÷ àéñåø îåñéó.

1.

Answer: One can say that the Tana is only concerned with cases of Isur Mosif.

åà"ú, îëì î÷åí, àîàé ìà úðà àçåú àùúå åááú àçú- åëâåï ùéò÷á ðùà áú àãí ðëøé åàçø ëê ðùà àåúå ðëøé ãéðä áú éò÷á åéìãä ìå áú ...

(f)

Question: Still, why does the Tana not include Achos Ishto be'Bas Achas (where the Isur comes simultaneously) - where Ya'akov marries the daughter of a man, who subsequently marries Dinah bas Ya'akov, who bears him a daughter ...

äùúà äåéà àåúå áú ùì ãéðä áú áúå ùì éò÷á åàçåú àùúå?

1.

Question (cont.): And Dinah's daughter now turns out to be both the granddaughter of Ya'akov and his wife's sister?

åéù ìåîø, ãáàéñåøà ùò"é ÷ãåùéï ìà úðé àìà àåúä ùçì äàéñåø îéã áùòú ÷ãåùéï...

(g)

Answer: In the cases concerning Kidushin, the Tana only includes those by whom the Isur takes effect immediately at the time of the Kidushin ...

åäùúà îéã ùðùà éò÷á áú äàéù, ìà äéä ùåí àéñåø òã ùðåìãä áú ãéðä îàåúå äàéù...

1.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in this case, when Ya'akov married the man's daughter, there was no Isur attached until Dinah's daughter was born from that man ...

àæ çì àéñåø àçåú àùúå òí àéñåø áú áúå.

2.

Answer (concl.): And only then did the Isur Achos Ishto together with that of Bas Bito take effect.

åà"ú, åáâîøà ã÷àîø îåãé ø' éåñé áàéñåø îåñéó, îðìéä ...

(h)

Question: When the Gemara says that Rebbi Yossi concedes to Isur Mosif, from where does it know that ...

ãéìîà ëåìä îúðé' áàéñåø áú àçú îééøé ...

1.

Question (cont.): Perhaps the entire Mishnah is speaking about Isur Bas Achas ...

åëâåï ùðú÷ãùå ëåìí ôçåú îáú â' ùðéí ãëé ðùìí ùðä ùìéùéú, àæ çìå ëì äàéñåøéï, ãçùéá áîúðé' ááú àçú?

2.

Case: Where they were all betrothed when they were not yet three years old, and when they turned three all the Isurim took effect simultaneously, which the Mishnah considers as Bas Achas?

åé"ì, ãìà çùéá àéñåøà ùò"é ÷ãåùéï àìà ëùçìéï áùòú ÷ãåùéï, åàé ááú àçú äåééï ëåìä, äøé ìà çìå ùåí àéñåø òã âîø ùìù ùðéí åéåí àçã.

(i)

Answer #1: The Tana only mentions Isurim via Kidushin which take place at the time of Kidushin, and for all of them to occur simultaneously, it could only have occurred later when they all turned three.

åòåã é"ì, ãîúðé' ìà àúéà ìàåøåéé ø÷ áàéñåø îåñéó ëîå ùôéøùúé.

(j)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Mishnah is only concerned with Isur Mosif, as Tosfos just explained.

10)

TOSFOS DH EISHES ACHIV

úåñ' ã"ä àùú àçéå

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and elaborates.)

äééðå àùú àçéå îàîå...

(a)

Clarification: This refers to his maternal brother's wife ...

ãàé îàáéå, äéàê ðùàä æ÷ï? åäìà ìà úôñé áä ÷éãåùéï ãäåéà ëìúå?

1.

Proof: Because if it was referring to the wife of his paternal brother, how could the grandfather have married her, seeing as she is his daughter-in-law, on whom Kidushin does not take effect?

åîëàï îùîò ãàùú àçéå îàîå áëøú, ãçééá òìéä çèàú.

(b)

Chidush: It implies here that one's maternal brother's wife is subject to Kareis, which (be'Shogeg) is subject to Chatas.

åäà ãîîòè áúåøú ëäðéí ...

(c)

Implied Question: And when the Toras Kohanim precludes her ...

äééðå îòøéøé àáì ëøú àéëà.

1.

Answer: It is from Ariri (dying childless), but not from Kareis.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF