ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS ON TOSFOS
THE YISRAEL SHIMON HA'LEVI TURKEL MASECHES KIDUSHIN
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
TOSFOS DH HAREI TEFILIN U'PETTER CHAMORclick for question
(a) Rashi attributes our taking for granted that Tefilin applies in Chutz la'Aretz (even though the Torah writes 'Bi'ah' with regard to them) - to the fact that often the Gemara often cites cases where the Amora'im wore Tefilin.
(b) And as for Petter Chamor - the Gemara in Bechoros informs us that Rami bar Chama (or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak [who was from Bavel]) had a lamb that was a Peter Chamor.
(c) The question is valid, even assuming that they only observed these Mitzvos mid'Rabanan - seeing as the Mishnah mentions Orlah, which, it seems, is also mid'Rabanan ...
(d) ... as is implied from the fact one is allowed to go down and pick it ... (as we cited on the previous Amud from the Gemara later).click for question
(a) The problem with the suggestion that a Mitzvah only falls under the category of 'ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz' if the Torah uses an expression of Bi'ah is - from Kil'ayim, which the Tana defines as 'Teluyah ba'Aretz', even though 'Bi'ah' is not mentioned in connection with it?
(b) We answer that - it is only Mitzvos that are not directly connected to the ground, which, according to the current theory, are included in the category of 'Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz', if the Torah uses 'Bi'ah' ("ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz") in connection with them; Mitzvos that are, are considered 'Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz', whether the Torah uses the term 'Bi'ah' or not.
TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN: 'TZEI U'LEMAD MI'MAH SHE'KASUV BE'INYAN"ABEID TE'ABDUN ES KOL HA'MEKOMOS ... ", MAH AVODAS-KOCHAVIM MEYUCHEDESclick for question
(a) We reject the text 'Avodas-Kochavim bi'Chelal Haysah, ve'Lamah Yatza's, Lehakish Eilehah ... ' - because the Pasuk 'went out' for the continuation "Abeid Te'abdun ... ".
(b) The ramifications of what we have just said are - that we do not learn the current Derasha ('Mah Avodas-Kochavim she'Hi Muyuchedes she'Hi Chovas ha'Guf ... ') from the fact that the Torah repeated it (i.e. from the principle 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'Kelal Lelamed ... '), but from a 'Mah Matzinu'.
TOSFOS DH LELAMEDCHA SHE'KOL MAKOM SHE'NE'EMAR BO MOSHAVclick for question
(a) The Pasuk to which the Gemara is referring is the Pasuk in Sh'lach-L'cha "Ki Savo'u el Eretz Moshvoseichem, va"Asisem Isheh ... " - written in connection with the Parshah of Nesachim.
(b) According to Rashi's interpretation - this is coming to teach us, according to R. Yishmael - that any Korban brought on a Bamas Tzibur (even a Korban Yachid) requires Nesachim.
(c) We know that the Pasuk is referring to the Korbanos of a Bamas Tzibur and not a Bamas Yachid - because "Asher Ani Nosen lachem" implies a Bamah that is shared by everybody.
(d) Consequently, "Moshvos" cannot mean 'wherever you reside' - since a Bamas Tzibur is confined to one location.click for question
(a) "Moshvoseichem" now comes to preclude - the first fourteen years when the Bamas Tzibur (the Copper Altar of Moshe) stood in Gilgal from Nesachim.
(b) Once the conquest of Kena'an was completed, and they built the Mishkan in Shiloh - they always brought Nesachim, first in Mishkan Shiloh, then, after Shiloh was destroyed, on the Bamas Tzibur in Nov and Giv'on)?
TOSFOS DH VE'HAREI SHABBOS SHE'NE'EMAR BAH "MOSHVOS"click for question
(a) We object to Rashi, who cites the Pasuk in Vayakhel (in connection with the construction of the Mishkan) "Lo Seva'aru Eish be'Chol Moshvoseichem" as the Pasuk to which the Gemara is referring, on two grounds; one of them, because the Gemara in Shabbos Darshens from this Pasuk - that although one is not permitted to light a fire on Shabbos in all one's dwellings, one is permitted to do so in the Meduras Beis ha'Mokad (the fire that burned in the Beis-Hamikdash to keep the Kohanim's feet warm).
(b) Our second objection is based on the Gemara, which will shortly teach us - that the 'Moshvos' of Shabbos is written in the Parshah of Mo'ados.
(c) Conseuently, the Pasuk to which the Gemara must therefore be referring is - the Pasuk in Emor "Shabbos Hi la'Hashem be'Chol Moshvoseichem".
TOSFOS DH BE'MAI KAMIFL'GIclick for question
(a) Rashi explains the Gemara's question as 'What did R. Akiva see to disagree with R. Yishmael?' Not the other way round, since, as we learned earlier - he bases his Derasha on the word "Lachem", which implies 'a Bamas Tzibur', that serves everybody (in the way that we explained earlier).
TOSFOS DH LO KIRVU NESACHIM BAMIDBARclick for question
(a) We know that they did not bring Nesachim in the Desert - because the Torah writes "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" (which in turn, implies after Yerushah and Yeshivah).
(b) Rashi queries this from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh (in connection with the Milu'im) "ve'Zeh asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach" - which goes on to mention Nesachim.
(c) He resolves the difficulty - by establishing that to the Korban Tamid, which is a Korban Tzibur, but not to a Korban Yachid.
(d) And we know that they did not bring Nesachim together with their Korbanos Yachid in the Desert - because if they had, they would not have stopped when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, in Gilgal.click for question
(a) R. Akiva (who maintains that they did bring Nesachim in the Desert), establishes the Pasuk in ...
1. ... Tetzaveh - by a Niskei Yachid on a Bamas Tzibur, and the Pasuk in ...
2. ... Sh'lach-L'cha which comes to render Korb'nos Yachid subject to Nesachim - by a Korban Yachid on a Bamas Tzibur ...
(b) ... whereas "Moshvos" in Parshas Sh'lach-L'cha must be coming to include 'Niskei Yachid on a Bamas Yachid ...
(c) ... from the moment they arrived in Gilgal.
TOSFOS DH HO'IL VE'NE'EMRAH BI'AH S'TAMclick for question
(a) Rashi, in Parshas Beha'aloscha, to explain why the Parshah of Korban Pesach, which took place before the opening Parshah of Sefer Bamidbar (which was said only in Iyar), says that it does not in fact precede it - in order not to open with a Parshah which refers to the denigration of Yisrael.
(b) The Torah sometimes record events in the wrong chronological order, based on the principle -'Ein Mukdam u'Me'uchar ba'Torah'.click for question
(a) According to the Tana in our Sugya, they did not bring the Korban Pesach throughout their travels in the Desert - because in Parshas Bo, the writes "Bi'ah" in connection with the Korban Pesach, and wherever the Torah writes Bi'ah, it refers exclusively to after Yerushah vi'Yeshivah.
(b) Consequently, they only brought the Pesach under discussion - due to a Divine command ...
(c) ... as they did in the time of Yehoshua, after they crossed he Yardein.
(d) Despite the fact that they were not supposed to bring the Korban Pesach before Yerushah vi'Yeshivah, not bringing it all those years was still considered a disgrace on their part - because, due to the sin of the Golden Calf, which kept them in the Desert for forty years and delayed their entry into Eretz Yisrael.click for question
(a) Alternatively, those who hold that they did not bring the Korban Pesach during the forty years because of the disgrace of Klal Yisrael - conform with the Tana who explains that the Pasuk writes 'Bi'ah' by Korban Pesach to teach us that for observing this Mitzvah alone they would merit entering Eretz Yisrael ...
(b) ... and it is for the same reason that the Torah writes 'Bi'ah' in connection with the Mitzvah of Korban Pesach.
(c) And the reason that they did not bring their Korban Pesach all those years was - because most of them were not circumcised, and the Torah forbids someone who is uncircumcised, to eat the Korban Pesach.
(d) And the disgrace was - the fact that they had not circumcised.click for question
(a) They did not circumcise in the Desert - because the north wind (with its healing properties) did not blow.
(b) Nevertheless, Chazal describe this as a disgrace - because it was due to the sin of the Spies that they were in disgrace and the north wind did not blow.
TOSFOS DH BIKURIM LO KOL-SHE'KEINclick for question
(a) The current Gemara does not hold of the form of logic that we said earlier - that there is more reason for Bikurim to apply immediately ('Bikurim de'Mishanya le'Alter')
TOSFOS DH MOSHAV DE'KASAV RACHMANA GABEI MATZAH LAMAH LIclick for question
(a) To reconcile this with the Sugya in Arvei Pesachim, which learns from 'Moshav' that Matzah applies even nowadays, even though Pesach does not - we suggest that our Sugya conforms with the Tana who learns that from the Pasuk in Bo "ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos".
TOSFOS DH BI'ZEMAN DE'IKA PESACH, IN; BI'ZEMAN DE'LEIKA PESACH, LO, KAMASHMA LANclick for question
(a) What we learn from 'Bi'ah' that is written in connection with Pesach is - that for observing this Mitzvah alone they would merit entering Eretz Yisrael (as we explained earlier).
(b) And from the Pasuk in Bo ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos" we learn - the same as we are currently learning from "Moshvoseichem", only one of them speaks about Chutz la'Aretz in the time of the beis-Hamikdash, and the other, about (Eretz Yisrael or) Chutz la'Aretz nowadays.
(c) We know that these Pesukim are not speaking with reference to eating Matzos together with the Korban Pesach - seeing as we already know that from the Pasuk in Bo "al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu".
TOSFOS DH MI'MOCHORAS HA'PESACH ACHOL, ME'IKARA LO ACHOLclick for question
(a) The I'bn Ezra asks how we know that "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach" means the sixteenth and not the fifteenth - on the basis of the Pasuk in Masei "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach Yatz'u B'nei Yisrael ... " (where it means the day after they Shechted the Korban Pesach (the fifteenth).
(b) Rabeinu Tam answers the question - by saying that indeed it does mean the fifteenth, and the phrase "va'Yochlu me'Avur ha'Aretz" (that precedes "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach") refers to the old of crops (of the previous year) ...
(c) ... whereas the "Matzos ve'Kaluy" (that follows it) they ate - "be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" after they brought the Omer.
(d) The precedent for referring to th sixteenth as "Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" lies - in the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lechem ve'Kali ve'Charmel Lo Sochlu be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh".click for question
(a) The Ri disagrees with Rabeinu Tam. He explains the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Mas'ei and the Pasuk in Yehoshua - by drawing a distinction between the Lashon of the Torah (where "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach" refers to the fifteenth, and that of the Navi, where it refers to the sixteenth (and what's more, he adds, 'Lashon Chachamim Lechud', too).
(b) And he proves his point from the Gemara's Lashon 'Me'ikara Lo Achol' - which makes no sense according to Rabeinu Tam, since there is no reason to differentiate between the fifteenth and the fourteenth.